Category: Uncategorized

“One thing that can be encouraging for us today is that the New Testament prepares us for living in the kind of world we find ourselves. The New Testament doesn’t prepare us for living in Christendom. The New Testament addresses a world in which believers are a small minority. It addresses a world in which Christians don’t have any illusions about being in charge of things. Christians are trying to do their best to live at peace with all men as far at it lies with them and yet also to recognize the legitimate authority of civil government and I think as we try to do a Biblical political theology there are all sorts of resources for us to live in the kind of world in which we find ourselves….

Does God wish us to strive for a unified Christian society in which civil government and economic institutions and everything else are united by a common confession of Christ? Now of course we all agree I hope in the proclamation of the Gospel we want as many people as the Spirit is pleased to convert to turn to Christ — of course that is not the question. I think the question is, do we believe that God has called our political communities as such to be those which are confessionally Christian. My argument is ‘no.’ A big part of my argument is to say, ‘actually our political communities are covenantally grounded’ and that is something that should resonate with Reformed people because we pay a lot of attention to the Biblical covenants in Scripture. My argument specifically is that our political communities are grounded in the covenant with Noah after the great flood. There God covenanted with the entire world — including all human beings — so not just with believers, not just with those who profess the name of Christ but with all human beings and God called all human beings to live together in a common community in which they are called to do justice You remember in the Noahic covenant (Gen. 9:6), ‘Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed,’ that’s a general call for justice and that is given to the entire human race and that Noahic covenant is still in effect today. That covenant is in effect til Christ comes again … My basic argument is that because God has ordained political communities to grow out of this covenant with Noah that we are to respect the commonality of our political communities. In other words, that these are communities that are supposed to bring together in some kind of common life — both those who profess Christ and those who don’t.”

Dr. David Van Drunnen (DVD)
Politics after Christendom
Interview w/ Dr. R. Scott Clark
Office Hours program

1.) Three times in the first three sentences DVD makes reference to the New Testament. In his constant return to this phrase it seems the expectation that DVD is pushing for is that Christians today would be “New Testament” Christians. Now, that phraseology, and DVD’s usage of “New Testament” in the first three sentences above has a distinctly Dispensational flavor to it. This type of thing is just one reason for why many have observed that R2K is Reformed Dispensationalism.

2.) DVD’s constant complaint is against the idea of repristinating Christendom and yet we hear DVD seemingly desiring to repristinate the conditions of the New Testament when the Scripture was written. Yet, there is not one word in the New Testament that we are required to maintain their level of paganism as it existed during the 1^st century AD. The fact that God’s New Testament Revelation and inscripturation came into a pagan culture and climate is no argument that God desires Christians to live in pagan cultures and climate. It is not even an argument that we should expect, as Christians to live in political communities that are not decidedly Christian.

3.) All because the New Testament addresses “a world in which believers are a small minority” doesn’t mean God’s intent was that the world would forever find believers being a small minority in political communities.

4.) DVD offers that the New Testament doesn’t prepare us for living in Christendom thus suggesting that therefore living in Christendom is not intended by the New Testament. By this reasoning we could just as easily say that “the New Testament doesn’t prepare us for living in the 21^st century therefore living in the 21^st century is not intended by the New Testament,” or “the New Testament doesn’t prepare us for living anywhere except the Mediterranean world therefore living elsewhere but the Mediterranean world is not intended by the New Testament.” It is a significant non-sequitur on DVD’s part.

5.) Living at peace with all men does not mean compromising on Biblical Christianity so that the pagans who hate Biblical Christianity will be satisfied with our presence. It is easy to live at peace with all men if we just jettison the core of Biblical Christianity in our political communities. In my estimation DVD is doing with this passage (Romans 12:18) what he does with so much Scripture; he is making it walk on all fours.

6.) As Christians we are certainly to “to recognize the legitimate authority of civil government,” while at same time insisting that if civil authority desires to be taken as legitimate then it has the requirement laid on it to rule consistent with God’s definition of justice. Here, in these united States, if any civil Government wants to be recognized as having legitimate authority they must rule consistent with their political covenant documents (Federal and State Constitutions). If they fail in that as characterized by a long train of abuses they have surrendered all expectation from both Christian or non-Christian to be recognized as having legitimate authority. The authority of civil-government is not absolute and is not to be recognized as legitimate when it becomes illegitimate.

7.) If we believe that there is no such thing as neutrality, then it is inescapable that if we are not striving for a unified Christian society bonded by a common confession of Christ then all that is left is striving for a society that is unified by some other God and Faith reflecting a common confession of some pagan deity. After all, “he who does not gather with Christ, scatters.”

As I noted in part 1 it is not possible to live in a political community that is not unified by one particular God and one particular faith. Pluralism is a myth. Multiculturalism likewise is a myth. They are both concocted so as to blind us from the reality that one God and one Faith is animating and controlling the political community. If we won’t strive for a unified Christian society we will, even if only by default, strive for a unified non-Christian political community and society. We cannot serve two Masters. We cannot serve Christ in our private individual lives and our Church lives and not serve Christ in the public square (common realm).

8.) Also at this point in the interview DVD returns to a central theme in his “theology” and that is his insistence that the Noahic covenant provides the cornerstone to his political-theology R2K project. This position has, in the past, been challenged repeatedly. DVD however can not give this position up because it is the lynch pin of his innovative system. The Noahic covenant was not a redemptive covenant and so must be common. This position allows DVD to pivot to say that the Noahic covenant is the covenant that all mankind operates and functions in during their lifetime when those who are believers are not operating and functioning within the Church. One implication of this for DVD and R2K is that the Church and the Kingdom are identified as exact synonyms. There is nothing outside the Church realm as existing in the public square that is an expression of the Kingdom of God. Everything outside the church realm as existing in the public square is a common realm relating back to the common Noahic covenant. The common Noahic covenant teaches us that there is no such thing as Christian politics, Christian economics, Christian Education, Christian family, etc. since all these function within the common Noahic covenant and not as ancillaries to the Kingdom of God.

That DVD is in error regarding his assertion that the Noahic covenant “doesn’t make any promises of Redemption,” can be seen inasmuch as the Noahic covenant is in point of fact highly redemptive, both in looking back to creation and looking forward to Christ.

First one finds the flood being presented in similar terms as the chaos of Gen. 1:2, and the ark’s landing on dry land and Noah’s commission by God to be fruitful and multiply both echo the original creation narrative. The rescue of Noah was a Redemptive rescue and this is hinted at when Noah offers sacrifice to God upon being released from the Ark. If the Noahic covenant was truly common would we see a blood sacrifice associated with it?

Second, the Noahic is Redemptive if only because it ends in a “new creation — restoration.” The Noahic covenant is a proleptic and typological event that portrays the final and ultimate redemption to be found in Christ. The Noahic covenant is thus, contrary to DVD’s assertion, Redemptive.

The fact that the Noahic covenant is Redemptive is pointed to in I Peter in such explicit terms it is difficult to believe that anybody could hold the Noahic covenant as common. The flood water symbolizes Baptism which is the sign and seal of Redemption by Jesus Christ.

I Peter 1:20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.[e] It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

Eight were saved (Redeemed). The flood water symbolizes Baptism which is the sign and seal of Redemption by Jesus Christ.

Now, no one would argue that the Noahic covenant didn’t have implications for what R2K calls the “common realm,” but clearly the Noahic covenant is a Redemptive covenant. Noah points us back to creation and speaks of its renewal, but points us forward to the ultimate renewal in Christ. It is thoroughly redemptive, not merely “common.”

If the Noahic covenant made promises of Redemption, contrary to DVD, then his whole R2K project fails. Let it fail.

9.) It is interesting to note, per DVD’s standards, that the first political community to form after the flood wherein God’s people sought to live in peace with all men, and wherein the commonalities that are to be expected between all men, regardless of their faith, in their respective political communities is recorded in Genesis 11 and is known as Babel. I’m confident a ancestor of DVD was alive then and was emphasizing the importance of common grace.

10.) This is a comparative tidbit in terms of exposing DVD but possibly still a significant one. Note how DVD repeatedly uses the term “human beings.” Once upon a time the word there would be “mankind.” Is DVD influenced by political correctness?

“I think we have to affirm that there is a basic antithesis between believers and unbelievers — between a Christian way of thinking and a unbelieving way of thinking. At some fundamental level we think and act in different ways. At the same time, I believe, and I make the argument for this in the book that actually God calls us, as believers, to live together alongside unbelievers in our political communities. God did not institute political communities only for Christians. These are places where Christians and non-Christians are called to live together in some sort of peace, justice and order. And that really is the challenge because that is not easy….”

“There is a sense in which under Christendom … there was sort of this attempt to say, ‘you know the only people who really ought to have a share in our political communities is those who think like us, and so we all ought to agree on the same sort of basic fundamental issues.’ I’m making the argument that the Lord is calling us to strive to live in peace with all sorts of different people and not to try to eliminate from the political community those who don’t agree with us about the most important things and so that really is the challenge. How can we faithfully, wisely seek to live together peacefully as justly as possible with whom we disagree about fundamental things. Here, I think the doctrine of common grace is very important because we recognize that in addition to God’s saving grace … God is at work preserving a measure of peace in this world…”

Dr. David Van Drunnen (DVD)
Politics after Christendom
Interview w/ Dr. R. Scott Clark
Office Hours program

This will be part 1 of a likely 3 part series on DVD’s interview with Clark. The reason that I am preoccupied with DVD now is that DVD has a new book out pushing the R2K agenda and as such he is out everywhere hawking his book. As such I am everywhere out exposing the gross error found in his “theology.”

1.) DVD speaks of an antithesis existing between believers and unbelievers and yet I very seldom hear DVD talk about just exactly what the antithesis looks like in the every day world. In point of fact, DVD’s whole R2K project is to say that in the common realm the antithesis is, or at least ought to be, completely muted. DVD heralds the idea that in the common realm the Buddhist, Talmudist, Muslim, and Christian can come together, and by virtue of all living under the same natural law — which we call appeal to together — we can all live in harmony. Reading or listening to DVD there is very little antithesis that is articulated. One wonders where DVD would find the anti-thesis (concretely speaking) in the common realm?

2.) DVD denies Christendom when he says above that “God did not institute political communities only for Christians.” This sounds reasonable to those of us who have been raised in the multicultural environs that is now the West. DVD’s statement is the perfect theological reflection that reflects a willingness to embrace multiculturalism. I don’t believe Christians have any business embracing multiculturalism.

However, more that that I can make an argument that DVD here is saying that God did not institute families only for Christians. Keep in mind that the family is a political community. Family is a child’s first political community. Larger political communities are merely family extended. At least that is the way “nations” were thought of before the multicultural dream was hatched. As such, I disagree with DVD when he says that God “did not institute political communities only for Christians,” because in that statement I hear that God did not institute any nation as only for Christians. I think God did intend, and does intend, for all political communities to be only for Christians. I believe this because Christ’s last words to the disciples were to baptize the nations and teach the nations to observe wherein all He commanded them (Matthew 28:16f). Because of that I think that DVD is being overly comfortable with the abomination that is multi-culturalism and has crafted a theology that harmonizes with multiculturalism.

3.) DVD presupposes that it is possible to have a political community that does not have some faith in the ascendancy that is ruling over every other faith. What else can I conclude from DVD’s idea that people of different faiths can work together in peace, justice, and order. What DVD is missing is that all political communities are animated by and reflective of one particular faith expression. Now, other faiths may be allowed to co-exist but the political community has only one God running the show. Muslims may allow people of the book to survive in their political community but only as hewers of wood and bearers of water (metaphorically speaking). Democracies may allow people of different faiths to operate in their political community but only as long as they don’t take their various gods too seriously. Christians can operate in this political community as long as they don’t take the God of the Bible seriously about the definition of marriage. Muslims in France can operate in the French political community as long as they forgo wearing the Hijab in French schools.

While it may seem that I am straying afar from DVD my point here is that DVD assumes that political communities are pluralistic but in point of fact all political communities are totalistic and always insist that those living in their political communities must serve the God in charge of the differing political communities. So, in order for Christians to live in political communities that are putatively multicultural they must be treasonous to their God in order to co-exist. For DVD that treason is acceptable.

4.) DVD speaks about living with those who don’t agree with us (Christians) about the most important things. Let’s consider the implications of this statement given our current setting in the West. Per DVD we are expected to live with those who don’t agree with us on,

a.) There being a differences between men and women
b.) The Lord’s Day being set apart as unique
c.) The routine killing of the unborn
d.) The catechization of our children in Government schools in Marxist thinking
e.) The Muslim call to Worship across Britain on BBC radio
f.) The fact that “married” sodomites should be accepted as “married.”

According to DVD we ought, as Christians “not to try to eliminate from the political community those who don’t agree with us,” on these types of issues.

5.) DVD talks about God, via common grace, preserving a measure of peace. Is that really what is happening or is it instead that Christians are compromising for the sake of not upsetting the God of the multicultural West?

“The right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history and tradition, but rights come not from ancient sources alone. They rise, too, from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era. Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here. But when that sincere, personal opposition becomes enacted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the State itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied. Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their person-hood to deny them this right.

Anthony Kennedy
Obergefell vs. Hodges

1.) “Rights come not from ancient sources alone” — Clearly a swipe at the Christian Scriptures. So if rights do not come from God alone what other God is there to give rights to man if not man as God?


2.) “Better informed understanding” — those poor poor fools of the past who were not bright enough to have the better informed understanding of this brilliant current generation. Of course this is generational snobbery. Any current living generation always has the advantage of having a “better informed understanding,” than those poor benighted fools who went before.

3.) We’re not disparaging you or your beliefs as wrong in the least. We are just saying that you did not have the “better informed understanding” that we have. No disparagement at all here. Your definition of marriage in the past was that in order for marriage to be possible you need to join male and female. Our better informed understanding will now re-define marriage so as to be defined as the joining of male and male or female and female. Let the Dictionary and all the Gods be damned, we will completely redefine marriage because of our “better informed understanding.”

4.) So, Christian beliefs as enacted law should not be but the religious beliefs of sodomites should be enacted law?

5.) I should think that the Mormons will be wanting to revisit Reynolds vs. US with this ruling.

6.) Is it ever proper to stigmatize or disparage any sexual self identity? Polygamy? Polyandry? Bestiality? Pedophilia? Necrophilia? Remember Justice Kennedy you have created a right of self identity in this decision.

7.) If marriage can be mean anything then it means nothing. This decision moves the end of marriage if only because marriage no longer has any stable meaning.

In a sane world, Justice Anthony Kennedy would be committed to an insane asylum. Elsewhere in this decision he writes,

“The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity.”

Yet, a few sentences later the man could write,

“And their immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment.”

Anthony Kennedy
Obergefell vs. Hodges

First they themselves are defining and expressing their identity. Then, a few sentences later we find out about their “immutable nature.”

CONTRADICT MUCH?

If the sodomites are defining and expressing their identity how can it be the case that they have an immutable nature?

Just one more from Kennedy in his decision,

“The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity.”

Anthony Kennedy
Obergefell vs. Hodges

Kennedy found a Constitutional right that allows persons to define and express their identity?

Who knew that the Constitution supports Existentialism? Who knew that the Constitution embraces the notion that humans have not set nature? Who knew that the Constitution taught Existentialist post-modern Anthropology?

“It would be a grave mistake to reduce … the universalist principles of the Founding [for an] ethno-nationalism.”

Senator Ben Sasse — R. – Nebraska
Twitter account

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

U.S. Constitution

“Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, without which a common and free government would be impossible.”

John Jay, Federalist #2

“The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another.”

Alexander Hamilton

“If you would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge that your own actions were selfish, putting your own interest ahead of those in the community in which you live, that you now see the error of your ways and understand that the society cannot function when one’s own belief in a concept of liberty permits you to flaunt your disdain for the rulings of duly elected officials. That you owe an apology to the elected officials for whom you disrespected for flagrantly ignoring and, in one case, defiling their orders, which you now know obviously applies to you. that you understand that the proper way in an ordered society to engage concerns which you may have had is to hire a lawyer and advocate for change and exception to laws you find offensive. That you publicly state that this is the way that citizens in this state should behave. That you represent to this court that you will, today, cease operation of your salon and not reopen until further order of the Government permit you to do so. this court will consider the payment of a fine in lieu of incarceration which you have demonstrate that you have so clearly earned.”

Dallas Judge Eric Moye
Sentencing Hair Salon Owner Shelly Luther

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Bill of Rights V Amendment

1.) Shelley Luther (Owner of the closed hair salon in Texas) has had her fifth amendment rights violated by the Governor of Texas (Greg Abbot) who in his Executive Order regarding the closing of business did deprive all affected business owners of their property without due process of law. Judge Eric Moye then added insult to injury by jailing and fining Mrs. Luther for refusing to obey an unconstitutional order from the Governor of Texas. This is a clear case of tyranny as handed down by both the Governor of Texas and as underscored by this leftist Marxist Judge (Obama appointee) in Texas.

2.) After Mrs. Luther refused to bow down and grovel to this arrogant piece of skubala judge the man wearing the black robe literally said to the bailiff, “Take this bi…Uh, defendant away.”

3.) Notice Judge Moye’s lack of command of the English language. The skubala Judge used an inaccurate word and said Luther “defiled” an order when the word he wanted was “defied.” Clearly we have a Judge here whose IQ level doesn’t match the demands of his work. “Defiled,” is typically a theological term and means, “desecrate or profane (something sacred).”

However, on second thought, the use of a theological term was actually more accurate given what was going on as this woman was brought before this skubala Judge. Shelley Luther was a penitent brought before the State’s Father Confessor and as a heretic was being demanded that she confess her sins and publicly recant of her behavior and so have her price of penance diminished. Medieval Rome couldn’t have put on a better display.

4.) It was an overtly religious exercise. We are not dealing with some kind of “secularization” process. This all communicates that we are dealing with another religion. The judge just forgot to demand a pinch of incense and that she prostrate herself.

The danger of calling this “secularization” is that what happens with that language is that it implies that what is happening is that the culture is embracing a morality of the “secular” when in point of fact the culture is embracing the morality of a religion different from Christianity and so the culture is not being secularized but humanism-ized.  I think this is a significant point that we too often fly right by. When we complain about secularism and secularization it communicates that some form of mystery agent is changing our culture. However when we identify the alien religion that is gaining hegemony it becomes more clear who are enemy is.

Shelley Luther before Judge Moye teaches those with eyes to see that all of this was a extraordinarily religious exercise.

Governor Abbot — Pope making fiat declarations from the chair
Judge Moye — Father Confessor enforcing the Pope’s declaration
Shelley Luther — Heretic and penitent being required to recant of her sins
Jail time and fine — The penance that heretic must pay to pay for their sins

The irony here that the Governor’s last name is “Abbot” and the defendant’s last name is Luther is mind-boggling.