“The pluralism of the Noahic covenant requires members of the human community, Christians included, to cultivate the virtue of tolerance. Tolerance is a proper feature of justice in our fallen but pressured world.”

David VanDrunen
Politics After Christendom

The above quote was posted as a tweet on twitter by a clergy member who has a Ph.D from the vaunted London School of Economics and is reputed to be an intellectual pillar of the Church. Said minister is quoting this in an approving manner. Apparently it is from a new book that is to be released in April by Van Drunnen on a Reformed Church already punch drunk from his theology of contradictions.

I post this post, first, in order to shred this quote and secondly to demonstrate again how torpid our current clergy corps is. This quote and the mindset that developed it (Van Drunen) as well as the mindset that embraces it is reflective of how far the modern Reformed church has fallen if only because such a “theology” as this represents is completely innovative and has never been held by any Reformed clergy at any time or in any place. In other words the idea that Christians are not supposed to rule in the public square and that it is wrong for Christians to advocate that Christian magistrates rule consistently with God’s Word (as opposed to ruling by the invocation of Natural Law) is an innovation that has zero historical legs prior to the last fifty years. It is complete balderdash.

So, let us examine, first what this quote means in language that isn’t technical. In R2K “theology” (we only call it theology by way of courtesy) the Noahic covenant was a covenant that applied to all mankind and not merely the redemptive line. As such it was a common grace covenant. The implications of this therefore are that in the public square we must realize that God does not rule by His Law-Word as expressed in Scripture but rather rules by Natural Law. Further, because the public square is the space of common grace where all men interact, therefore the public square must be characterized by tolerance (principled pluralism — so called). This means that no one God should be uniquely God of the public square since the God of the Bible, via the Noahaic covenant has ordained that the public square is a realm of common grace and not saving grace and therefore it is to be legislated by a judicial framework that is NOT uniquely Christian but rather one that can be common to all men; to wit, Natural law.

Therefore tolerance is the virtue of all virtues as it relates to the public square. The Noahic covenant included all mankind and therefore is the basis of a required tolerance in and for the public square.

Now, of course what this theory must embrace for the common square is the idea that neutrality obtains in the common square. All men, regardless of their religion, can come into the common square and because they all have access (despite the contested presuppositions of their various religions) to a Natural law that they each and all share. The great premise of this haberdash theology is that the presuppositions of the various religions as owned by various men does not impact the way that they each and all interpret Natural law. In R2K “theology” common grace gives to all men the ability to agree on how natural law should be interpreted and understood. On a prima facie basis this should be instantly recognized to be thorough-going fantasy theology.

Now, as to the Noahic covenant let us note a few matters in order to eliminate the idea that it was a common grace covenant made with all men through Noah.

1.) The Noahic covenant, contra Van Drunen is thoroughly redemptive, both in looking back to creation and looking forward to Christ. Consider that the whole scenic panorama of Noah hearkens back to Adam. Noah is a second Adam who has, by God’s grace, been placed in a garden type setting after God conquers chaos (cmp. Gen. 1:2). Noah, like the first Adam is commissioned to be fruitful and multiply like Adam. All of this is a kind of repristination of the creation account and the Noahic covenant, as part of the covenant of grace, finds Noah as the representative Adam standing in for all mankind. As such it points us back to creation and yet forward to Christ because this new Adam (Noah) falls thus communicating there is a champion seed of the woman yet to come. This is about as redemptive as it gets.

2.) The Noahic covenant comes immediately after the flood which is in I Peter likened unto a Baptism. That is redemptive language. Now, combine this 2nd Adam, who has gone through the flood waters of Baptism, immediately offers sacrifice to God upon landing and it beggars the mind to suggest the Noahic covenant is not a redemptive covenant.

3.) The Noahic covenant is redemptive because inasmuch as the Noahic covenant promises continued life for mankind, in that much there will be those elect within all mankind who will be called and placed in the covenant of Grace. In other words, the general or common aspect of the Noahic covenant serves the larger purpose of maintaining a population out of which the Redeemed will be plucked.

The idea that the Noahic covenant is a common grace covenant related to creation and not redemption does not withstand sustained examination.

Deuteronomy 28:43 The foreigners who reside among you will rise above you higher and higher, but you will sink lower and lower. 44 They will lend to you, but you will not lend to them. They will be the head, but you will be the tail. 45 All these curses will come on you. They will pursue you and overtake you until you are destroyed, because you did not obey the Lord your God and observe the commands and decrees he gave you.

Here we find ourselves face to face with God’s words to national Israel detailing what His opposition would look like should Israel decide to forsake obedience to His Law. And what this opposition looks like is that Israel as a nation will be no longer be in control of their Nation. Instead, the Christ hating enemy will swoop in and displace the Hebrews in their own land.

This idea is raised again in Psalm 106, only there the enemy who will take over seems to refer to the aliens outside Israel and not within Israel.

40So the anger of the LORD burned against His people, and He abhorred His own inheritance. 41He delivered them into the hand of the nations, and those who hated them ruled over them. 

We might say it this way, when considering God’s promise in Deuteronomy 28 … “The Hebrews will lose their land, their culture, and their identity. They will not rule, but they will be ruled over by those who are foreigners – not Hebrews.”

Now before we get into this we must keep in mind there is a whole swath of Reformed clergy and Churches who do not believe this passage applies any longer. They do not believe there can be Christian nations and if there can not be Christian nations it cannot be the case that the Christians lose their position and status as head and so become the tail. This passage, it is said, is no longer in effect since it is not possible for Nations to be Christian. I don’t want to belabor this point this morning. I just want you to be aware of it. I want you to be aware that much of the Reformed Church could not preach this sermon because they do not believe that it any longer applies. This was, so the saying goes, something that was for the OT economy.

But for those of us, who like John Calvin, do believe this passage apply after the Resurrection of Christ what might we say when we consider this passage?

Well, we might first ask, what would this becoming the tail and not the head look like? What might the alien rising higher and higher among the Hebrews look like? What would it have looked like for the Hebrews to have been pursued and overtaken and so destroyed? What might always borrowing and never lending look like?

Well, we can only offer suppositions but the suppositions to follow would certainly be consistent with that kind of language.

Concretely speaking I think what the Hebrews might have faced to be made the head and not the tail is that their heroes may have been changed out. As the Alien rises higher and higher the statuary of the Hebrews would have doubtless been taken down and replaced. Down go the statues of David, or Moses, or Elijah, and up go the statues of Goliath, Haman, and Pharaoh. Hebrew School names and street names would have doubtless been changed out. As the Hebrews became the tail and the Aliens the head the school and street names honoring Elisha, Joshua, and Caleb would have been changed in order to honor Achan, Jambres and Jannes and Jezebel.

Another sign doubtlessly of the Hebrews being destroyed and the Alien ascending would have been a drop in the Hebrew birth rate to below replacement levels and an increase in the birth rate of the Alien. This would definitely over time lead to their destruction and eventual genocide.

This would be part of a broader attack on the family of the Hebrews by the Alien. The Alien rising higher and higher in order to make sure that the Hebrews continued to sink lower and lower would do all that it could to destroy the integrity of the Hebrew family. They would separate Hebrew parents from Hebrew children. The rising Alien would introduce gross irregularities into Hebrew marriage. The rising Alien would seek to normalize perversion among the Hebrew people which would contribute to the declining birth rate mentioned earlier. They would seek to alienate young Hebrew men from young Hebrew women by infecting the former with irresponsibility and the latter with feminism.

Doubtless a sign of the Hebrews becoming the tail would be a decided increase in the suicide rate of Hebrew men, a decided increase in the usage of Ritalin by Hebrew boys,

Doubtless in the lending department the Alien would construct and control a centralized bank that would forever keep the Hebrews in debt by the usage of fiat money. In such a way the Hebrews would forever be receiving the loans and never the ones to do the lending. In such a way the truth of Proverbs 22:7 would be seen;

The rich rules over the poor, And the borrower becomes the lender’s slave.

Another sign of the Alien rising higher and higher over the Hebrews would be for the Hebrews to decide that since their economy needed cheap labor in order to manufacture cheap goods what would be advisable is to invite even more non-Hebrews into their land.

In the Hebrews history, this warning in Dt. 28 came to pass more than once. In Isaiah for example we read,

“Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire, strangers devour your land in your presence, and it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers…” -Isaiah 1:7

And all this because of a refusal to live by God’s law. The result of all this is that the Hebrews came down very low; into a very mean condition, to be in great subjection, a vassal and a slave in their own land.

“I know you will not mind my being brutally frank when I tell you that I think I can personally handle Stalin better than either of your Foreign Office people or my State Department. Stalin hates the guts of all your top people. He thinks he likes me better, and I hope he will continue to.”

Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Letter to Winston Churchill

 “Do not preach against homosexuality (which can be ‘vitriolic’), but reach them (Sodomite practitioners) by “personalized hospitality…. We need to share the gospel and we need to stop adding to the gospel. And what I mean by that is we need to share the gospel of hope in Jesus, not rant about anal sex… that can be very distracting”

Rosaria Butterfield
Queer but Celibate Advocate

I’m reading now on FDR’s charm offensive waged on Stalin at Tehran and later Yalta. Supposedly, FDR was convinced that if he just demonstrated to Stalin that he (FDR) was no threat that Stalin would come around to see things his way. This included basically giving Stalin everything he asked for from the Americans. FDR was convinced that if Stalin could only be convinced that the Americans were not out to get them then a reasonable peace could be arrived at. FDR practiced philoxenia at its best. He didn’t argue with Stalin. He didn’t negotiate with Stalin. He didn’t threaten Stalin. He was the perfect host and just gave Stalin everything the mass murderer wanted.

There is a parallel here in the modern visible church in the West.

This is the same exact type of reasoning that Rosaria Butterfield is pushing on Evangelicals. She is telling them that we have to win the sodomite, lesbian, and trannie with “radical hospitality.” Invite them into your homes. Call them by the pronouns they wish to be called by. Communicate that you are not a threat to them. In such a manner they will be converted.

Now, I am not opposed to hospitality and I have set more than one table for friends who were sodomite and lesbian. I’ve also been to “gay” bars in hopes of reaching sodomites with the Gospel. But these people, whether sitting in my home breaking bread with me, or whether in the dark environs of an unseemly bar, had no illusions about where I stood on their sin and how they, by that sin, were destroying themselves. You see, love and hospitality, constrained me to have spoken the truth to them.

I don’t think Mrs. Butterfield is correct. I believe that the practical effect of what she is advocating is to drop the work of the law in favor of the sweetness of the Gospel. However the Gospel is only as sweet as the law is bitter and while hospitality is certainly sometimes an option it should never be hospitality at the expense of speaking the truth… yes, Rosaria, even about anal sex.

It is my conviction that Mrs. Butterfields approach works as well as FDR’s approach worked with Stalin. Roosevelt’s hospitality approach resulted in millions and millions of souls being consigned to living under the darkness of Communism. Rosaria’s approach is sure to consign people to live for eternity under the darkness of hell.

“Just as the Papists set up the law for justification, so the Antinomians decry the law for sanctification. We claim to be free from the curses of the law; they would have us free from the guidance, from the commands of the law. We say we are free from the penalties, but they would abolish the precepts of the law. They tell us that we make a false mixture together of Christ and Moses, and that we mingle law and Gospel together. How unjustly they lay this charge against us, let men of understanding judge. We cry down the law in respect of justification, but we set it up as a rule of sanctification. The law sends us to the Gospel that we may be justified; and the Gospel sends us to the law again to inquire what is our duty as those who are justified.”

Samuel Bolton
The True Bounds of Christian Freedom

“Just as the Federal Visionists set up the law for justification so the R2K Antinomians decry the law for sanctification. We claim to be free from the curses of the law; R2K would have us free from the guidance, from the commands of the law. We say we are free from the penalties, but R2K would abolish the precepts of the law. R2K tell us that we make a false mixture together of Christ and Moses, and that we mingle law and Gospel together. How unjustly R2K lays this charge against us, let men of understanding judge. We cry down the law in respect of justification, but we set it up as a rule of sanctification. The law sends us to the Gospel that we may be justified; and the Gospel sends us to the law again to inquire what is our duty as those who are justified.”

Samuel McAtee Bolton
The True Bounds of Christian Freedom
Interpolated Version

The Federal Vision boys are a little more subtle than this alteration of a quote by Bolton which originally had “Papists” for Federal Vision and “Antinomian” for WSC R2K. The Federal vision will often concede that we are not justified by law keeping and then will turn around and with the magic of covenantal nomism say, in essence, “but we do keep our Justification by law keeping,” thus making justification contingent on our performance after being justified. This suggest that the Federal Visionists have not yet become familiar with their sin and how because of our sins even our best of works after Justification need to be imputed with the Righteousness of Christ to be counted as meeting the standard. Contra the Federal Visionists boys we do not obey after our subjective Union with Christ and Justification so as to maintain an otherwise uncertain standing before the Father. We obey after our subjective Union with Christ and Justification from the gratitude that flows from the certainty that despite our being unworthy servants (Luke 17:10) our “obedience” is still accepted for the sake of Christ’s finished work on our behalf.

Both Federal Vision and R2K are poison to the soul of Christ honoring obedience. Federal Vision poisons the soul by corrupting the motivation of obedience. WSC R2K poisons the soul by reducing the necessity for obedience. Federal Vision and R2K are mirror errors. They are to the theological landscape today what Eutychianism and Nestorianism were to the early Church — to wit, two errors that each exist off the existence of the error of the other.

When Stalin put on his show trials, confession was the only reasonable response coming from men innocent of the charges brought against them. (Which is different from being innocent of any crime. Those convicted in the show trials many times over deserved death.) If one believes the Party is God — and all good communists do — if the Party says you sinned then all that is left for you to confess. One just does not protest one’s own innocence when God says you’re guilty.

In the same way many Christians, particularly those who have grown up in conservative Reformed Churches, view the Church. If the Church says you’re guilty of sins – sins that it just so happens that the Cultural Marxists say you’re guilty of — then you’re guilty. You don’t fight back. You take your stinging rebuke and say, “Thank you Sir, may I have another.” At least that is the fashion in which some operate.

But what if the Church, like the old Soviet State – Party, is just compromised and so wrong? Is it right and proper to apologize for acting and speaking the same as the Prophets and Apostles spoke? Is it right and proper to accept the discipline of an Institution itself that Jesus Himself is embarrassed by? Why should Christians accept the judgment of Sessions and Consistories who are themselves saturated with the Zeitgeist?

I have seen, in the past few years, sundry attempts, both successful and unsuccessful, of Reformed Churches going after laymen for holding positions on race, nationality, and patriarchy that only two generations ago would have been seen as Biblical and normative.

Further I’ve noticed a pattern. First, someone gets wind of something someone said, usually in some kind of social media context and not infrequently as occurring in some kind of setting that was supposed to be private. Second, said person either snitches on a conversation that was supposed to be private or passes it on too someone who does the same. Third, the private correspondence becomes very publicly known. Fourth, the context of the text is completely stripped away so that stripped away from the context (which might have included humor, or sarcasm, or tongue in cheek communication) the text is seen as outrageously scandalous. Fifth, the person who is bringing attention to the matter goes all “point and splutter” combined with hyperventilating and all the while breathlessly repeating “can you believe this,” and “how dare you.” This has the intention of starting a “point and splutter” avalanche so that myriad others join the original “pointer and splutterer” all pointing and spluttering about that which nobody can give a substantive Biblical reason for their pointing and spluttering. Imaging a roomful of Junior High girls hearing a rumor that a mouse is loose in their locker-room and the attendant shrieking and gasping which would follow. And here’s the kicker, later it is found out that it really wasn’t a mouse but a large dust ball.

The subsequent step then is for the authorities to step in. These are authorities who have been all conditioned by the pointing and spluttering and who themselves have zero ability to think critically. The only real difference between themselves and the original accusers is that they have adopted a more refined and erudite cultural Marxist Christianity that instead of pointing and spluttering prefers to clear their throats with dignity all the while using the word “Jesus” a lot in explaining the sin of the poor fly who is now stuck in the spider web.

And now the show trial begins. Our brier patch occupant enters into the star chamber. “CONFESS CONFESS CONFESS” cry out the modern Torquemadas. The Stalin show trials are under way. Acquittal is not possible since the jury has already been told by the Cultural Marxist clergy how the trial must end. Besides, as mentioned above the jury itself has been indoctrinated from the culturally brainwashed pulpit not to mention that the jury pool has been poisoned by the already released putative damning correspondence that has been stripped of its context. The verdict is inevitable only to be possibly avoided by a larger desire on the part of the Institution staging the performance show trial to avoid the publicity and possible embarrassment of a drawn out trial if the accused dare to mount a defense that included file cabinets full of quotes from the Church Fathers supporting the position of the accused.

If the accused doesn’t mount a defense he must grovel and apologize for his “sins,” against God and mankind. Now, the kicker here is that the apology often really amounts to lamenting your thought crime for all the world to see and the purpose of it isn’t so much to satisfy somebody who was genuinely wounded as it is to make an example of those who would dare walk contrary to the sanctioned narrative of our PC overseers – PC police who are now Elders in our churches.

The accusation without context might be, “Your guilty of demeaning a people group with your language,” never mind that St. Paul called all Cretans liars and Jesus referred to a gentile woman and her kind as “dogs.” Only a context can guide us in adjudicating if a people group was demeaned without cause. The accusation without context might be “your guilty of being sexist,” never mind that Western civilization for millennium, following Scripture, insisted that women should operate under male covenant headship. Only a context can guide us in adjudicating if sexist things were really said. The accusation without context might be, “He said that, ‘God does not embrace all peoples as equal,” never mind that depending on the the context it is true in the proper context that God does not embrace all peoples as equal. (And for the record, the idea that any Calvinist would choke on the idea that doesn’t love all peoples equally need to return the reality that God hated Edom but loved Israel.)

These types of charges are not so much accusations interested in a dispassionate pursuit of justice as they are attempts to assassinate the character of the one being charged. They are ecclesiastical versions of Christine Blasey Ford vs. Brett Kavanaugh or Anita Hill vs. Clarence Thomas. There purpose isn’t to arrive at justice. There purpose is to rend reputations and defile character, while protecting the narrative that historic Christianity and the carriers of it were and are nekulturny, bigoted, and destructive. All of this “evidence” as set before the oi polloi Elder rubes who couldn’t begin to tell the difference between evidence and circuses.

Personally, I’m tired of it. I’m tired of the attempt, sometime successful and sometimes not to destroy otherwise good men. I’m tired of the visible Church playing the role of Andrey Yanuaryevich Vyshinsky in a Stalin show trial. I’m tired of this ridiculous narrative that is only not Three Stooges comical because it is taken so serious by the brain dead brainwashed. I’m tired of scads of people ignoring scads of evidence from scads of witnesses, now long dead, that this Cultural Marxist narrative is completely innovative and a stranger to Church History only arriving on the scene sometime around 1950. I’m tired of the assertion that there is something criminal in loving your kin more than loving the alien and stranger, that there is something troglodyte in believing that there are distinct male and female roles which should be honored, and that there is something inherently sinful about Western Christian civilization.

God grant us Reformation.