R2K Virus (Radical Two Kingdom Theology) – Page 46

Addressing the confusion of those who think they are addressing the confusion about the two kingdoms doctrine: what about the law?

I stumbled across the blog of a irenic young man who is working on his Ph.D on something related to R2K. On his blog he was, in his most irenic fashion, seeking to help dissipate what he perceived as the confusion of an Elder in his denomination that does not agree with him on R2K. This entry is intended to be my irenic address of the irenic and well intentioned blog post of our earnest Ph.D candidate. We will call him “Irenic” for posting purposes.

Irenic

In this first post I want to take up two of the concerns mentioned by the elder at once. The first is the idea that the Decalogue is not binding in the common realm. The second is the idea that natural law provides the exclusive ethic for the civil kingdom.

Now a basic familiarity with the classic Reformed two kingdoms doctrine as expounded by Calvin, as well as with the writings of a contemporary two kingdoms advocate like David VanDrunen, suggests that there is confusion underlying these concerns, particularly when viewed side by side. Simply put, for Calvin, as well as for VanDrunen, the Decalogue essentially is the natural law. So how could the Decalogue not bind the common realm, while natural law does? The reality is that both bind the common realm fully, even though neither should be fully enforced by the state.

Bret

First, as we want to avoid confusion we should immediately note that the two Kingdom theology of John Calvin is not the two Kingdom theology of David VanDrunen. For example, could VanDrunen’s two kingdom theology agree with Calvin’s two kingdom theology when Calvin says,

“But it is questioned whether the law pertains to the kingdom of Christ, which is spiritual and distinct from all earthly dominion; and there are some men, not otherwise ill-disposed, to whom it appears that our condition under the Gospel is different from that of the ancient people under the law; not only because the Kingdom of Christ is not of this world, but because Christ was unwilling that the beginning of His Kingdom should be aided by the sword. But, when human judges consecrate their work to the promotion of Christ’s Kingdom, I deny that on that account it nature is changed. For, although, it was Christ’s will that His Gospel should be proclaimed by His disciples in opposition to the power of the whole world, and He exposed them armed w/ the Word alone like sheep among wolves, He did not impose on Himself an eternal law that He should never bring Kings under his subjection, nor tame their violence, nor change them from being cruel persecutors into the patrons and guardians of His Church.”

John Calvin
Commentaries on the Last four Books of Moses.

And again,

John Calvin 1509-1564

“But this was sayde to the people of olde time. Yea, and God’s honour must not be diminished by us at this day: the reasons that I have alleadged alreadie doe serve as well for us as for them. Then lette us not thinke that this lawe is a speciall lawe for the Jewes; but let us understand that God intended to deliver to us a generall rule, to which we must tye ourselves…Sith it is so, it is to be concluded, not onely that is lawefull for all kinges and magistrates, to punish heretikes and such as have perverted the pure trueth; but also that they be bounde to doe it, and that they misbehave themselves towardes God, if they suffer errours to roust without redresse, and employ not their whole power to shewe a greater zeale in that behalfe than in all other things.”

Calvin, Sermons upon Deuteronomie, p. 541-542

I have many more quotes like this from two kingdom Calvin that radical two kingdom VanDrunen would likely choke upon.

On this score, secondly we would say that obviously Calvin would not agree w/ Mr. Irenic that neither the Decalogue nor Natural Law “should be fully enforced by the state.”

Third, if the Decalogue and the Natural Law both bind the common realm fully why is it that neither should be enforced fully? And, so as to help with our confusion, is it the Natural law or the Decalogue that teaches us that even though they bind the common realm fully they are not to be enforced fully?

Mr. Irenic,

This is a classic example of how misunderstanding among Christians caused by differences in terminology and emphasis can make a minor disagreement seem like a major one. Let me explain.

When two kingdoms advocates (or Reformed people generally) say that the Decalogue is not binding in some sense, they do not mean that the moral will of God (the law of love) as revealed there is not binding. What they mean is that as a covenantal document, as the two tablets of stone representative of the Law (the Sinaitic Covenant, or, as Calvin would have called it, the peculiar ministry of Moses), the Decalogue is no longer binding. Christians are justified by faith alone, and they now fulfill the Law by obeying the law of love.

Here Mr. Irenic seems to assume that the Mosaic covenant was a recapitualtion of the covenant of works. This is something that is not conceded by many Reformed men. So, the differing views of the Mosaic covenant would have to be hashed out (and great would be that work) in order to deliver all of us from all the confusion that currently exists on all sides.

Second, when we talk about God’s law for the common realm we are talking about the civil use or the normative use of the law and not the pedagogical use. It is the pedagogical use of the law that leads us to Christ so that we might be justified by faith alone. All Christians rejoice in God’s justifying of sinners apart from works. However, when we talk about the law as it applies to the common realm or as it is taken up by the Christian Magistrate (something at least some R2K’ers do not believe exists) we are not asking whether or not we can be saved by keeping the law (we can’t) we are asking, “what is the standard for the Christian life as he lives out his life in the common realm” and “what is the standard by which civil magistrates must rule.” The answer to both those questions is God’s Law Word as exhibited in the Decalogue which might also be called, “the law of love.”

And of course the “Law of love,” is exactly synonymous with the Decalogue so that if I want to know what love is I refer to God’s law in order to give love stable definition.

Mr. Irenic continues,

Now when two kingdoms advocates say that the Decalogue is not binding on the state, they might mean several things. They might mean that the state is not obligated to enforce all of the Ten Commandments. The state cannot, for instance, punish people for coveting.

Bret

And of course we remember that nowhere in the Old Testament law (Decalogue or Case law) did God require the Magistrate to handle the sword against thought crimes such as coveting. The OT has a distinction between sin and crime.

Mr. Irenic,

Nor should it punish people for worshiping false gods, let alone for using images in worship. On the other hand, they might simply mean that the ceremonial law as found in the Ten Commandments is not binding (for instance, the commandment not to work on the seventh day Sabbath, which just so happens to be Saturday). Finally, they may mean that citing the Ten Commandments is not a sufficient reason for demonstrating that the state should do something, given all of the above reasons. To prove that the state should do something one would need to show that it is part of God’s timeless moral law (i.e., natural law), and that it is within the state’s realm of responsibility. But I do not know anyone who would say that the moral law as revealed in the Ten Commandments is not binding on all people everywhere. No one says this.

First, let’s remind ourselves that Mr. Two Kingdom John Calvin did believe the State was responsible to punish people for worshiping false gods.

Then lette us not thinke that this lawe is a speciall lawe for the Jewes; but let us understand that God intended to deliver to us a generall rule, to which we must tye ourselves…Sith it is so, it is to be concluded, not onely that is lawefull for all kinges and magistrates, to punish heretikes and such as have perverted the pure trueth; but also that they be bounde to doe it, and that they misbehave themselves towardes God, if they suffer errours to roust without redresse, and employ not their whole power to shewe a greater zeale in that behalfe than in all other things.”

Second, note that Mr. Irenic holds a not universally agreed upon view that the 4th commandment is ceremonial and so eclipsed. Mr Irenic suggests that because the 4th commandment of the Decalogue is ceremonial therefore the Magistrate is not obligated to it. Of course those Reformed folks who don’t agree with Mr. Irenic’s view of the fourth word are hardly going to agree with his peaceful reading on this matter.

Third, if the Decalogue and Natural Law are one and the same why would it be necessary to appeal to Natural law to support a Civil Magistrates decision if the Decalogue clearly supports it? If the Decalogue and Natural Law are one in the same then why would an appeal to the Decalogue not be sufficient reason for the State to do something?

Mr. Irenic set out to dispel confusion must I must tell you that my confusion increases with each sentence.

Mr. Irenic,

The key here is to remember that in Reformed theology going back to Calvin, the law of love, the Decalogue (interpreted properly in light of Christ), the principle of equity, and natural law are all the same thing. What this debate is about is not whether or not the civil kingdom is under the law of God. What this debate is about is how we should determine what parts of God’s law the state should enforce by means of the sword, and how we should go about persuading people who are not Christians that the state should enforce something like say, traditional marriage, or the sanctity of life.

Bret,

Ah … has Mr. Irenic slipped us a Mickey? Mr. Irenic talks about, “the Decalogue interpreted properly in the light of Christ.” But wasn’t the Decalogue always supposed to be interpreted properly in the light of Christ even when it was first given? In terms of the civil use of the law and the normative use of the law how does “interpreting in the light of Christ” cause the law to differ from the OT to the NT?

The debate is about whether or not the civil kingdom is under God’s law. If Tommy Two Kingdom comes along and insists that God’s word has nothing to say on Marxist economic policies pursued by the State I am going to see him saying that God’s Law does not condition the civil realm even though he might be insisting that all he is saying is that God’s law does not speak to Marxist economic policies. So, we are left debating what it is we are debating.

Finally, of course we are going to disagree upon how we should go about persuading people who are not Christian that the state should enforce something if we can not agree upon the scope of God’s law.

Mr. Irenic,

In truth, we should be clear to our neighbors about the fact that we keep God’s law because it is revealed in his word. We should not hide the fact that we are Christians, but should always be ready to give a reason for the hope that is within us. But we should also clearly and lovingly show our neighbors how the law is written on their hearts and how it is part of the very fabric of creation. By doing this, we can better communicate to our neighbors that God’s law is for their own good, intended for their prosperity, and in so doing, indirectly point unbelievers to the Gospel. In fact, as my recent posts on marriage have sought to demonstrate, Christians would be doing a lot better of a job defending marriage in this country if we approached it in this way, rather than by simply quoting Scripture ad nauseum to those who reject it. The same is true for abortion or for any number of issues. But I am now getting into the subject of my next post, on the concern that two kingdoms proponents claim the Bible is not for the civil realm. I’ll return to that issue in the next post.

Bret,

Here we are back to the first use of the law. If I want to lovingly communicate to my neighbors how the law is written on their hearts then I must also lovingly communicate to them that they are suppressing the truth of that law in unrighteousness. I must also communicate to them that they can not keep God’s law. I must do this to them so that they might despair of their ability to keep God’s law. We must keep in mind that only lovers of God can conclude that “God’s law is for their own good.” And so, while we seek to convince them that God’s law is for their own good, we realize that they will never see that apart from a regenerating work of grace.

I’m not sure I agree with Mr. Irenic that Christians would be doing a lot better of a job defending marriage if they appealed to Natural Law over the Decalogue. People who hate Christ hate God’s law whether you serve it straight up or with a beer chaser.

J. Gresham Machen On Christianity & Cultural Transformation

“The “other-worldliness” of Christianity involves no withdrawal from the battle of this world; our Lord Himself, with His stupendous mission, lived in the midst of life’s throng and press. Plainly, then, the Christian man may not simplify his problem by withdrawing from the business of the world, but must learn to apply the principles of Jesus even to the complex problems of modern industrial life…. At this point Christian teaching is in full accord with the modern liberal Church; the evangelical Christian is not true to his profession if he leaves his Christianity behind him on Monday morning. On the contrary, the whole of life, including business and all of social relations, must be made obedient to the law of love. The Christian man certainly should display no lack of interest in “applied Christianity.”

Only—and here emerges the enormous difference of opinion—the Christian man believes that there can be no applied Christianity unless there be “a Christianity to apply.”

That is where the Christian man differs from the modern liberal. The liberal believes that applied Christianity is all there is of Christianity, Christianity being merely a way of life; the Christian man believes that applied Christianity is the result of an initial act of God. Thus there is an enormous difference between the modern liberal and the Christian man with reference to human institutions like the community and the state, and with reference to human efforts at applying the Golden Rule in industrial relationships. The modern liberal is optimistic with reference to these institutions; the Christian man is pessimistic unless the institutions be manned by Christian men. The modern liberal believes that human nature as at present constituted can be molded by the principles of Jesus; the Christian man believes that evil can only be held in check and not destroyed by human institutions, and that there must be a transformation of the human materials before any new building can be produced. This difference is not a mere difference in theory, but makes itself felt everywhere in the practical realm….

Thus Christianity differs from liberalism in the way in which the transformation of society is conceived. But according to Christian belief, as well as according to liberalism, there is really to be a transformation of society; it is not true that the Christian evangelist is interested in the salvation of individuals without being interested in the salvation of the race.

Machen
Christianity and Liberalism

A Discussions On The Vacuity Of R2K

Bret wrote,

“Culture is defined as “theology externalized,” or, “the outward manifestation of a people’s inward beliefs.”

And David Rothstein responded

“As far as I know, this is not a commonly accepted definition, even among Christians, though of course you’re free to use it. I personally don’t find it helpful since most things that we associate with culture do not necessarily manifest theological systems—or at the very least cannot be fully explained in these terms.”

Bret answers,

First off, the definition isn’t mine but comes from Henry Van Til who borrowed it from Paul Tillich. You might want to interact with them and show why they are wrong on the definition of culture before you so casually dismiss it.

Here is the appropriate section from Van Til’s book, “The Calvinistic Concept of Culture.”

“It is…more correct to ask what the role of culture is in religion than to put the question the other way around, as Hutchison does, ‘What is religion’s role in culture?’ For man, in the deepest reaches of his being, is religious; he is determined by his relationship to God. Religion, to paraphrase the poet’s expressive phrase, is not of life a thing apart, it is man’s whole existence. Hutchison, indeed, comes to the same conclusion when he says, ‘For religion is not one aspect or department of life beside the others, as modern secular thought likes to believe; it consists rather in the orientation of all human life to the absolute’. Tillich has captured the idea in a trenchant line, ‘Religion is the substance of culture and culture the form of religion.’

The Westminster Shorter Catechism maintains at the outset that man’s chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever. However other-worldly this may sound to some, Presbyterians have interpreted this biblically to mean that man is to serve God in his daily calling, which is the content of religion. This service cannot be expressed except through man’s cultural activity, which gives expression to his religious faith. Now faith is the function of the heart, and out of the heart are the issues of life (Prov. 4:23). This is the first principle of a biblically oriented psychology.

No man can escape this religious determination of his life, since God is the inescapable, ever-present Fact of man’s existence. God may be loved or hated, adored or debased, but he cannot be ignored. The sense of God (sensus deitatis) is still the seed of religion (semen religionis). All of primitive religion is corroboration of the cry of the Psalmist, “Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? Or wither shall I flee from thy presence?” (Ps. 139:7).”

Second, your assertion that “most things that we associate with culture do not necessarily manifest theological systems—or at the very least cannot be fully explained in these terms,” is just plain errant. History, Law, Education, Arts, Family life, Ecclesiastical, Fashion, Architecture, and all other institutional infrastructure of a culture is explained by theology.

Bret wrote,

But I would disagree w/ you that the handling of that common reality by those committed to hostility of Christ allows them to understand the dialect with which the Christian speaks.

David responded,

I never claimed that unbelievers understand the significance of “justification,” “sanctification,” or “regeneration.”

Bret responds,

And I never said that was the dialect that I was speaking of. The Christian dialect is based on the fact that objective meaning exists by virtue of God’s reality. The Christian believes and speaks with the dialect that recognizes that, all things are what they are because of who God is. The non Christian dialect locates meaning subjectively and their dialect is based on their own fiat word legislating meaning. Because this is true when I say “culture,” for example, the Christian finds meaning in God’s word that, “As a man thinketh in his heart so he is,” and then by good and necessary consequence understands that God’s definition of culture is that it is the manifestation of men thinking in their heart (theology externalized) while the non Christian or the unbiblical Christian will try to define “culture” (our working example) based upon their own self legislating subjective fiat word.

Bret had asked,

Is the clothing that the hooker wears the same as the clothing that the pastor’s wife wears?

David responds,

I live in a neighborhood inhabited by many unbelievers, but as far as I know, none of them is a hooker. My next-door neighbor happens to be Jewish and his wife dresses much like many pastor’s wives that I know of.

Bret interacts,

And what does this prove?

It merely proves that the Jewish wife is not dressing in a way that is consistent with her denial of the God of the Bible. It is common grace that your neighbor Jewish wife is not immoral as she could possibly be given her Christ hating presuppositions. I never denied common grace.

However, that your Jewish neighbor’s Jewish wife is not dressing like a trollop is not due to the fact that she has given up her work of determining meaning by her own legislative fiat word. It just happens to be the case, by God’s common grace, that her subjective legislative fiat word coincides with God’s objective fiat word when it comes to modest dress. As Christians we are always glad for this felicitous inconsistency that results from common grace.

Bret had inked,

“Are our houses furnished the same way? I can foresee a consistent Christ hater having a secret dungeon for S & M games.”

David responded,

Again, you’re having to stretch past the edges of socially acceptable behavior for all your contrasts. I am quite certain that the vast majority of my non-Christian neighbors are apparently not “consistent” Christ-haters and don’t have secret dungeons.

Honestly, it almost seems that you can’t tell the difference between “non-Christian” and “criminal.” Prostitution is illegal, gang bangers are likely to end up in prison, and while S&M may not be as frowned upon as it once was, there is a reason why they still keep those dungeons “secret.” But most of my non-Christian neighbors somehow manage to stay out of trouble with the law. There’s no denying that certain behavior that has become more socially acceptable in the society at large is not acceptable for professing Christians, but this is consistent with the thesis of a cultural realm that is common and not exclusively Christian.

Bret engages,

First, a slight correction … “Prostitution is not illegal in some places in this country.”

This is a key point of our interaction David. Note what you have done here. You have told us that your standard is “socially acceptable behavior,” but my question in response to you is, “what is the standard for socially acceptable behavior” (?).

What is the standard for what is “criminal?”

The answer to both of those questions is God’s legislating law word. To the law and to the Testimony as Isaiah says. But you don’t like that answer because you want to seemingly want to allow “socially acceptable behavior” to be the standard. But by that standard Homosexuality and Abortion are perfectly acceptable behaviors for our social order since they are now socially acceptable and now no longer criminal.

I can tell the difference between non-Christian behavior that isn’t criminal and criminal behavior but then I have a standard that allows me to make such a distinction.

And again, I am glad that God’s common grace is operative for your neighbors the way it is but the fact that God’s common grace prevents your neighbors from being consistent in their Christ hating does not mean that such a thing as a common sphere exists that is not to be normed by God’s word.

Bret had inked,

“The non Christian, as they are increasingly consistent w/ their anti-Christ presuppositions will despoil and mar all the culture they share with the Christian who is becoming likewise increasingly consistent w/ their Christ embracing presuppositions.”

David responded,

I know that Van Til spoke in terms like these, but I’m not sure what you mean by it. If you simply mean that unbelievers abuse God’s good gifts for selfish ends, then granted. Or if you mean that anti-theistic philosophical systems are opposed to Christianity, then duh. But in what sense do non-Christians “despoil and mar” culture? (Did Aristotle despoil logic? Did Itzhak Perlman despoil violin music?)

When hip hop and gangsta rap is called “music” culture is despoiled. When modern art is considered art culture is despoiled. When homosexuality is legalized culture is marred and despoiled. When the church allows women in office the culture is marred and despoiled. When education teaches humanism culture is marred and despoiled. When law becomes ordered by logical positivism culture is marred and despoiled. When families are redefined and are fractured because of the theology of foreign gods culture is marred and despoiled. When science embraces evolution culture is marred and despoiled. Enough examples David?

In terms of philosophy, according to Dr. David Noe, one of the R2K aficionados, we are told there is no such thing as Christian philosophy.

“If by “Christian philosophy” one means philosophizing (the production and evaluation of rational arguments that deal with such things as ethics and metaphysics, for example) that deals with explicitly Christian topics, then at first glance the adjective has some salience. But deeper reflection, I argue, proves that this designation is also problematic. Presumably a very bright non-Christian reasoning consistently, diligently and with complete access to the basic data of special revelation, can more often reach sound and valid conclusions than the most devout yet dim-witted believer on the topic of our Lord’s incarnation.

If that is true, what would it be about the believer’s philosophizing that makes it uniquely Christian? If we cannot tell based on the product of his or her work whether our philosopher was practicing “Christian philosophy” even on topics that deal explicitly with matters of faith, does the noun “philosophy” receive any meaningful modification when we add “Christian” to it? Could one really be said to practice Christian philosophy in that instance? Are we not rather just back at the same point with philosophy done well (producing both sound and valid arguments that tell us something meaningful about the world), but that it is Christian when done by Christians with specific goals and dispositions motivating them and non-Christian otherwise?”

So, if there is no such thing as theistic philosophy how can there be such a thing as anti-theistic philosophy. I don’t think R2K acolyte Dr. David Noe would understand you “no duh” statement. Of course Dr. Noe’s problem is that he doesn’t take account of the fact that the non Christian philosopher takes as his starting point that the God of the Bible is not and should not be His starting point. Dr. Noe allows autonomous man to be his own authority and so questions whether or not Christian philosophizing exists.

Finally in terms of logicians like Aristotle or violinists like Christian Ferras, once again we rejoice in a common grace that results in felicitous inconsistency.

Bret had written

“The things you classify as “accouterments of culture,” are indeed a consequential manifestation of ultimate theological commitments. Will we as a culture build Tepees for houses? Will we listen to hip hop or classical? Will we fund with our taxes a gulag archipelago or will we fund interstate highways.”

David responds,

If a native American becomes a Christian, is he required to move out of his tepee and into a suburban home? What is it about a teepee that make it non-Christian, and which ultimate theological commitments are manifested in suburban homes? I don’t know that these things are patently obvious. Preference for hip hop or classical is an issue of low culture vs. high culture, which of course transcends the antithetical divide. And I don’t know what is particularly Christian about interstate highways.

I never said that Teepees weren’t or couldn’t be Christian. I said that they were consequential manifestations of ultimate theological commitments.

If you can’t see that it is patently obvious that a people who build Teepees and a people who build Cathedrals have different conceptions of God, I’m sure I can’t explain it to you. If you can’t see that hip hop is anti-music as opposed to the music of a Bach I can’t explain it to you. Some of these matters ought to be self evident to someone who believes in Natural Law.

Van Til could say this about your examples,

“It is God’s longsuffering patience which would lead you (unbeliever) to repentance that enables you to do all those things which “for the matter of them” are “in themselves praiseworthy and useful.” God intends to accomplish his ultimate end, the establishment of his kingdom. That is the reason why you are now able to contribute positively to the coming of that kingdom. The harps you make, the oratorios you produce, the great poems you have written, the scientific discoveries you have made will, with your will or against your will, all find their place in the unified structure of the kingdom of God through Christ. Now, then, in God’s name repent, for otherwise the Israelites will “borrow” your treasures and you shall perish in the Red Sea like the Egyptians (91).”

Now clearly this quote from Cornelius Van Til reveals he not hold to R2K because he understands that realities from the R2K common realm all find their place in the Kingdom of God.

Bret had wrote,

“I keep telling you that in the “already,” of the “already, not yet” the world to come is already here but you keep telling me that world to come is still all not yet.”

David Rothstein responds,

But what I keep hearing you tell me is that the “not yet” of the “already/not yet” is already here—or at least that we can cause it to arrive by being more epistemologically self-conscious. Perhaps it is a matter of differing millennial positions (though even Van Til, as far as I know, was amil).

The “already” is already here. That is why the “push me, pull you” is called “already, not yet.”

And I do believe that as we grow in faith that the Spirit who leads us into faith growth does cause us, both personally and corporately, to be transformed from glory unto glory.

Van Til was indeed amil although all of Old Westminster was postmil.

In the end David, for the Christian his regeneration is a introduction to the ability to consistently find proper meaning in everything. Outside of Christ the meaning that the pagan finds is a meaning that is autonomously legislated by the pagan’s fiat word. Once regenerated he begins to move increasingly in glad submission to God’s legislated meaning, discovering that his Redemption and regeneration has awakened him for the first time to the meaning of objective meaning.

This reality explains why the Christian can not allow any project to succeed that would allow the pagan to have objective meaning in and of themselves or by their own authority in any realm (R2K). This desire to be the one who creates or, supposedly discovers meaning, is the very thing that is in rebellion to God and has to be overcome by the Spirit of Regeneration.

This is not to say that the pagan who legislates their own meaning always gets matters wrong. Clearly they don’t. Common grace exists. It is to say that when they get meaning right they can not account, epstimelogically speaking, and on the basis of their own presuppositions, why the meaning they have assigned to this or that is the proper meaning. If even a blind old sow can find a acorn once in awhile so a unregenerate pagan can stumble on proper meaning occasionally even if they do so in spite of themselves.

McAtee Contra VanDrunen On Religious Commitment & Social Orders

‎”…what sort of religious commitment, if any, should be promoted or required within the social order? The answer, I suggest, is none. A crucial consideration is the fact that God made the Noahic covenant with “you [Noah and his sons] and your offspring after you, and with every living creature that is with you” (9:9-10). The human race generally (along with the animal kingdom) is God’s covenant partner. Not a single distinction is made between believers and unbelievers, but God promises to preserve them in their common social life.”

~ Dr. David Van Drunen, 2012 lecture

How thoughtful of Dr. Van Drunen to give us so clearly and to so passionately advocate his religious commitment for the social order. Dr. VD’s religious commitment for the social order that he is advocating is that the social order should be animated by the religious commitment of no religious commitment. Another way to label his religious commitment for the social order is ” Social Order Atheism. Interestingly enough this is the exact same social order theory advocated by Marxists of all hues and stripes.

Now, some desire to answer Dr. Van Drunen by insisting that the religious commitment of the social order should be all religious commitments. In this thinking the social order should be animated by all religious commitments. This is sometimes called pluralism but I prefer to label it as Social Order Polytheism. Interestingly enough this is the social order advocated by all anarchists.

The main problem with Dr. Van Drunen’s thinking is that it presupposes that man can cease being Homo Adorans (man the worshiper) in his common realm. For Dr. Van Drunen man is no longer a worshiper as he lives and moves and has is being in the social order, and not being a worshiper man can create a social order that is not reflective of any ultimate religious commitment to a god or god concept. Such a thinking puts a severe strain on ones desire to be a irenic.

In both situations of social order Atheism or social order polytheism, even though they each being with seemingly opposite religious commitments for the social order, they end up in the same place. If the social order is to be Atheistic then it will be the autonomous man deified as the State that will create the social order and the citizenry will be required to have religious commitments to the state. If the social order is to be polytheistic then it will require some institution to set the limits on how these competing religious commitments will interact in the social order. That institutions will likely be the State. Both of these positions lead us to the outcome that in the State we will live and move and have or being for the social order.

Michael Horton — 1995 / Michael Horton 2012

Nevertheless, Kuyper did make “Christian” versions of many things in the world: Christian schools, newspapers, and political parties tended to obscure the earlier Protestant confidence in the realm of nature as possessing sufficient life and justification for its existence without having to be organized as specifically Christian. This Kuyperian spirit has been especially attractive in some circles in North America, because it is world-embracing and eschews the pietistic retreat from society, and yet it should not be too hastily concluded that one can find a distinctively “Christian” philosophy, political theory, or aesthetic. If these are indeed realms of common grace and natural revelation, they do not require a specifically Christian explanation. Looking for one will only tend to polarize Christians from non-Christians until believers are at last exiled again from the public square forced to pursue their “Christian” philosophy in their own spiritual ghetto.[1]

Dr. Michael Horton
“Where in the World is the Church? A Christian Viwe of Culture and Your Role in It”
Moody Press, 1995 , page 32.

This is an older quote from Mike and it may be the case that he has changed his mind about this, though I would be surprised if he has. I have my doubts about his having changed any given this quote from Mike that is very recent.

“Christians, of all people, should be concerned about the pressing issues in culture and society today. However, even in the same church, where people share the same faith, worldview, and values, there will be different applications, policies, and agendas.”

1.) Mike speaks of an earlier Protestant consideration, pre-Kuyper, of a nature realm that possessed sufficient life and justification for its existence without having to be organized as specifically Christian.

And yet guys like John Knox, who certainly represent the earlier Protestantism that Mike speaks of, could insist that Mike’s natural realm be organized as specifically Christian.

“For it is a thing more certain that whatsoever God required of the civil magistrate in Israel or Judah concerning the observation of true religion during the time of the Law, the same doth he require of lawful magistrates professing Christ Jesus in the time of the Gospel, as the Holy Ghost hath taught us by the mouth of David, saying (Psalm 2): ‘Be learned, you that judge the earth, kiss the Son, lest that the Lord wax angry and that ye perish from the way.’ This admonition did not extend to the judges under the Law only, but doth also include such as be promoted to honours in the time of the Gospel, when Christ Jesus doth reign and fight in His spiritual kingdom, whose enemies in that Psalm be most sharply taxed, their fury expressed and vanity mocked. And then are kings and judges, who think themselves free from all law and obedience, commanded to repent their former blind rage, and judges are charged to be learned. And last are all commanded to serve the Eternal in fear, to rejoice before Him in trembling, to kiss the Son, that is, to give unto Him most humble obedience. Whereof it is evident that the rulers, magistrates and judges now in Christ’s kingdom are no less bound to obedience unto God than were those under the Law.”

John Knox, The appellation of John Knox from the cruel and most injust sentence pronounced against him by the false bishops and clergy of Scotland, with his supplication and exhortation to the nobility, estates and commonality of the same realm (Geneva, 1558) in idem, On rebellion, ed. R. A. Mason (Cambridge, 1994), pp 91-2.

I could repeat these kinds of quote many times over from Reformed men that long predated Abraham Kuyper and at least call into question Mike’s assertion of a earlier Protestant confidence in a natural realm that could be organized neutrally.

2.) Mike almost dismisses the idea of the possibility of Christian philosophy. With such a casual dismissal Mike dismisses the work of Christian Philosophers who believed that they were advancing Christian philosophy. Mike dismisses the work of men like Augustine, Cornelius Van Til, Gordon Clark, C. Gregg Singer, Francis Schaeffer, Ronald Nash, Greg Bahnsen, and any number of other Christian philosophers who insisted that they were advocating Christian Philosophy. This dismissal made so casually is a bit shocking even considering that it comes from a R2K advocate.

3.) The polarization that Mike warns against arising between believers and pagans is the natural consequence of Christianity contra non-Christianity. Is Mike saying that we should jettison Christian thinking so that we can get on better with the non-Christians? And in terms of ghettoizing isn’t the consequence of clash of belief systems the eventual marginalization of those who lose that clash, whether Christian or non-Christian?

Take R2K for example. It is in the midst of a worldview warfare against Historic Reformed doctrine and should it lose it will be ghettoized. Similarly, if Historic Reformed doctrine loses in this worldview warfare against R2K it will be ghettoized. Ghettoization is always the consequences of those who lose worldview clashes. For example, look how ghettoized that the Church in Russian was as a result of losing the worldview warfare with the Bolsheviks. Were Mike alive then would he have been writing things like, “The Russian Church needs to jettison Christian thinking so that we can get on better with the Bolsheviks?

4.) In Mikes second quote he advances the strange idea that people who have the same worldview will have different applications, policies, and agendas. How is it possible Mike, to have the same exact world and life view and yet contend for different applications, policies, and agendas? Can two people have the same Christian worldview and find that one desires the legalizing of abortion while the other desires that abortion be made a crime?

Certainly there might exist slight nuance differences and strategy differences among those who share a worldview but to say that those with the same worldview have different agendas is quite curious speech.