R2K Virus (Radical Two Kingdom Theology) – Page 41

You Are What You Love

Psalm 115:8 They that make them (Idols) shall be like unto them; Yea, every one that trusteth in them.

“God has made humans to reflect Him, but if they do not commit themselves to Him, they will not reflect Him but something else in creation. At the core of our beings we are imaging creatures. It is not possible to be neutral on this issue: We either reflect the Creator or something in creation…. All humans have been created to be reflecting beings, and they will reflect whatever they are ultimately committed to, whether the true God or some other object in the created order…. We resemble what we revere, either for ruin or restoration.”

G. K. Beale

We are imaging / reflecting creatures. This is why I say humans are chameleons, for they will reflect whatever culture that they are set against. When living in a pagan culture this explains why it is so important to not be conformed to the pagan culture but to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. The problem with the Church today is that it is reflecting and mirroring our pagan culture. This is why Churches that refuse to address the Public Square, because their theologies do not allow them to speak to the public square, will soon enough die out. Those churches will die out because their members will incrementally conform to the Spirit of the age since those Churches are ultimately committed to making sure that their members live in a zeitgeist that reflects one form of idolatry or another.

Public Opinion Polls, Historicism and Psychological Warriors

“Bernard Berelson was trained as a librarian but by the late 40’s was considered an expert in public relations and the manipulation of public opinion. One year after the publication of Blanshard’s book on Catholic power, Berelson co-edited ‘Public Opinion and Communication’ with Morris Jankowitz, one of the seminal works of communications theory, and a good indication of how the psychological warfare techniques refined during World War II were now going to be turned on the American public as a way of controlling them through the manipulation of the new media, i.e., radio and TV. Berelson establishes the book’s major premise in his introduction:

‘Growing secularization has meant that more and more areas of life are open to opinion rather than to divine law and to communication rather than to revelation. Growing industrialization has not only extended literacy; in addition, it has provided the technical facilities for mass communication.’

The goal of secularization was the reduction of all of life’s imperatives to ‘opinions,’ which is to say not the expression of moral absolutes or divine law. Once this ‘secularization’ occurred, the people who controlled ‘opinions’ controlled the country. Berelson is equally frank about where the new science of public opinion originated:

‘Research in the field was accelerated during WW II by demands for studies on the effect of communications upon military personnel, adjustment to army life and attitudes toward military leaders, enemy propaganda, and civilian morale. After the war this growing interest led to the establishment of additional university centers for the study of public opinion and communication by the methods of social science. Together with the continuing activities of industry and government, they now represent a large scale research enterprise.’

…. Berleson wrote also in 1950 that,

‘ there is a virtual pro-religious monopoly on communication available to large audiences in America today.”

Religious belief meant ipso facto the opposite of opinion, and therefore ideas not subject to the manipulation of the people who controlled the communications media. What needed to be done then was to move large areas of thought from the realm of religion to the realm of opinion if any significant breakthroughs in political control through manipulation of the media were to take place. Sexual morality was the most important area of religious thinking that needed to be moved into the realm of ‘opinion’ where it would be then under the control of psychological warriors like Berelson and those who paid his salary, namely, the Rockefellers.

And this is precisely what happened…

E. Michael Jones
Libido Dominadi

Notice that there was a designed and concerted effort, funded by the huge tax free Foundations (Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, etc.) to drag public thinking away from the residual remains of Christianity in the public square to a thinking that was called “secular.” The problem, of course, is that this was not a case where the public square was being unclothed of religious presuppositions, (secularization) but rather it was a case where the public square was being stripped of what remained of Christian presuppositions in favor of presuppositions consistent with Religious Leftist humanism.

This is seen in Berelson’s drive to get rid of religious absolutes in favor of “opinion.” However, clearly the problem here is that directed and manipulated opinion would now be the new absolute. The new absolute exchanged for the idea of Christian absolutes was the absolute of no absolutes. Any humanist absolute (masquerading as “opinion”) would be accepted in the secularized public square over and above a religious absolute.

Note also in the quote above the ascendancy of public opinion. Public opinion is to moral guidance what Historicism is to Historiography. In both cases, the absolute being evacuated, the only place a transcendent constant can be found is in the immanent subjective realm of space and time. If there is no transcendent constant then in order to shape public policy is to create public opinion through putative scientific public opinion polls and then to reify those subjective numbers into objective transcendent constants so that direction can be given to public policy. This is the same thing that happens in Historicism. As Historicism allows for no fixed transcendent constant by which history can be known and evaluated, therefore History itself must become its own fixed transcendent constant. Public opinion polls serve as absolutes for the immediate just as Historicism serves as absolute in interpreting the past as a guide for the future.

However, in both cases of Public Opinion polls and Historicism the results they yield are only as good as the manipulator the psychological warriors operating them.

Without the God of the Bible, who alone can give us a fixed transcendent constant as well as the certainty that the transcendent has become immanent, (thus assuring that the transcendent isn’t so transcendent that it loses touch with our sitz-im-leben), we only have a word and world of flux where man is a being manipulated and controlled by the Psychological warriors named Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie.

Addendum

R2K plays right into this agenda quoted from Jones. R2K allows the public square to be cleansed of what Berelson called religious belief in favor of the manipulations coming from the cultural elites.

Who said this version of Jesus + Nothing = Everything?

“Nothing is demanded of you — no idea of God and no goodness in yourselves, not your being religious, not your being Christian, not your being wise, and not your being moral. But what is demanded is only your being open and willing to accept what is given to you, the new Being, the Being of love and justice and truth, as it is manifest in Him whose yoke is easy and Whose burden is light.”

A.) Tullian Tchividjian — PCA Pastor
B.) Jack Miller — Sonship Guru
C.) Paul Tillich — Process Theologian
D.) David Van Drunen — R2K Theologian
E.) All of the Above

Cortez & R2K

“They brought to us 8 Indian girls, all daughters of chiefs, in order to cement our friendship…

The girls, Cortes added, must become Christian before we could accept them, and the people must give up sodomy, for they had boys dressed as women who practised that accursed vice for profit. Moreover every day they sacrificed before our eyes three, four, or five Indians, whose hearts were offered to those idols and whose blood was plastered on the walls. The feet, arms and legs of their victims were cut of and eaten, just as we eat beef from the butcher’s in our country. I even believe that they sold it in the tinaguez or markets. Cortes told them that if they gave up these wicked practices, not only would we be their friends, but we would vie them other provinces to rule. The Caciques, papas and the dignitaries all replied that it would be wrong for them to give up their idols and sacrifices, for these gods of theirs brought them health and good harvests and all that they needed; but as for sodomy, measures would be taken to see that the practice was stopped.

This insolent reply was more than Cortes or any of us who had seen all their cruelties and obscenities could stand. Reminding us of the doctrines of our holy faith, Cortes asked us “If we do not pay God so much honour as to stop them from making sacrifices to their idols, how can we ever accomplish anything worth doing?”

He told us that we must overthrow their idols that very day, and be absolutely prepared to fight if they tried to prevent us. We, as usual, were all armed and ready…

Bernal Diaz
The Conquest of New Spain

Let’s pretend that Cortez was R2K.

They brought to us 8 Indian girls, all daughters of chiefs, in order to cement our friendship…

The girls, Cortes added, could not be accepted because in order to accept them they must become Christian but that requirement would violate our pledge not to pollute the pluralistic public square by requiring of you, as a pagan, that which you do not want to do. Now, in terms of sodomy, we observed how their boys dressed as women who practice that accursed vice for profit but, well, while personally and individually we are opposed to it we understand how pluralism works. Now we noticed that every day they sacrificed before our eyes three, four, or five Indians, whose hearts were offered to those idols and whose blood was plastered on the walls. The feet, arms and legs of their victims were cut off and eaten, just as we eat beef from the butcher’s in our country. I even believe that they sold it in the tinaguez or markets. Cortez told them that he understood the common realm was, well … common and that he knew that if he and his Spaniards wanted to worship on Sundays Cortez’s Spanish troops had to give the Caciques room for their varying forms of worship, however untoward they may seem to the Spaniard. Cortez appealed to the precepts of Natural law as a reason to stop human sacrifice, but they said they had not heard of any god named Natural law and that surely any god named Natural law who was not powerful enough to stop their sacrifices wasn’t much of a god to be worried about. The Caciques, papas and the dignitaries continued by replying that it would be wrong for them to give up their idols and sacrifices, for these gods of theirs brought them health and good harvests and all that they needed; but as for sodomy, measures would be taken to see that the practice was stopped.

This insolent reply prompted Cortez to say that he understood and that it was ok because his eschatology informed him that “evil would alway grow together with good.” Cortez told us, “If we do not pay God so much honor as to not allow a pluralistic social order where human sacrifice to false gods can occur, how can we ever tell them about Jesus?”

Cortez told us that we must be polite to their idols and show deference that very day, and be absolutely prepared to fight to protect pluralism if any neo-calvinists tried to prevent public square religious pluralism among the Caciques. We, as troops from Westminster SC, as usual, were all armed and ready…

R2K Fundamentalism

“Modern culture is a mighty force. It is either subservient to the Gospel or else it is the deadliest enemy of the Gospel. For making it subservient, religious emotion is not enough; intellectual labor is also necessary. And that labor is being neglected. The Church has turned to easier tasks. And now she is reaping the fruits of her indolence. Now she must battle for her life.”

– Dr. J. Gresham Machen
From his address, — “Christianity and Culture”,
Delivered in 1912 for the centennial celebration of the founding of Princeton Seminary in 1812

Over at Dr. Nelson Kloosterman’s blog (Cosmic Eye) and at Dr. D. Gnostic Hart’s blog (Old Life) R2K (neo-Anabaptism) and Kuyperianism are debating. I briefly stuck my fork in there with the comment below,

Premise — The R2K hermeneutic allows Misty Irons and Todd Bordow to come to the conclusions they arrive at concerning social issues quite apart from whether or not other R2K aficionados agree with them or not. Hence, while Bordow and Irons may not be agreed with by Hart touching the issue of man love and puppy love, because of the R2K hermeneutic, they have the “Liberty of Conscience” to advocate for perversion.

Query — If the R2K hermeneutic doesn’t forbid such a possible embrace (no pun intended) of rather queer positions, on what basis does the R2K hermeneutic rule out such possible conclusions arrived at by Bordow and Irons?

Dr. D. Gnostic Hart responded to Doug Sowers who repeated my Premise and Query at Old Gnosticism,

Doug, I answered the question. 2k doesn’t rule out such an interpretation. How could it since in Presbyterian churches we don’t require members to subscribe (Irons) and we believe in Christian liberty. If you noticed, and please be as careful at Dr. K. allegedly now is, Bordow did not advocate gay marriage. He said he did not have the grounds to discipline someone for adopting political views that would allow for gay marriage.

You are doing what Machen’s critics did, assuming he was in favor or drunkenness because he opposed Prohibition.

This is why you are a fundamentalist. You only see one side of an issue. Gay marriage bad. But legislating gay marriage, or the church taking a stand on gay marriage involves laws and officers and members in a host of organizational relationships that go beyond the morality of homosexuality. But for you, it’s a black and white issue and you don’t care what comes with efforts to oppose it, even if it means instituting some kind of political or ecclesiastical tyranny.

Bret responds to Dr. D. Gnostic Hart,

1.) Notice how Dr. Hart has now embraced the position of Irons and Bordow who advocate theoretical Christians advancing the the permissibility of Homosexuality or Bestiality in the public square even if they themselves (Bordow, Irons, and now Hart) don’t advocate it or believe it themselves. If this is not public square anti-nomianism then none exists.

2.) Notice how Dr. Hart places politically active “Christians” in the public square, who advance the permissibility of a social order that allows and gives place for deviancy and perversion (as defined by Scripture), under the umbrella of “Liberty.” Of course this is to redefine liberty as license.

3.) Dr. Hart invokes Machen but Hart is comparing apples and sodomites here when he compares Machen’s opposition to Prohibition and Biblical Christians opposition to other Christians advocating the permissibility of perversion in the public square (even if those same Christians personally oppose such perversion). The reason this is a apple and sodomite comparison is that Machen’s position was that he could not oppose something that God’s word permitted. God’s word does not forbid the usage of alcohol and therefore Machen knew he could not support prohibiting what God allowed. Darryl is trying to advance a position where it is wrong to oppose, in the public square, a prohibition that God details in His word. It is not the same thing for Machen to oppose supporting (Prohibition) what God didn’t prohibit and Biblical Christians opposing for the public square what God opposes. As I said, Darryl’s comparison is Apples and Sodomites.

4.) Of course it is Dr. D. Gnostic Hart who is the Fundamentalist here. Darryl is a Gnostic Fundamentalist. He is only seeing the Gnostic side of the issue. The implication of what Darryl is invoking is the idea that it is perfectly acceptable for a Christian Doctor to preform Abortions if he is “in a host of organizational relationships” (such as a Hospital that does abortions) “that go beyond the morality of abortion.” For Darryl this is a White and Gray issue. White — Personally and individually these things bad. Gray — In the Public square these things require “liberty.” Darryl doesn’t care what comes with efforts to oppose perversion, even if it means instituting some kind of political or ecclesiastical tyranny that forces Christians to accept these perversions in the public square and forces them to accept people who accept the acceptability of these perversions in the Church (even if those people don’t themselves approve them personally and individually).