“Read on its own terms, the teaching of the New Testament about the Kingdom of God is remarkably silent about the pressing social concerns of the day.”

R. Scott Clark 
Escondido R2K Theologian

Here the dispensational tendency of R2K is seen. Scott wants to consider the Kingdom of God as only in its New Testament reality. But all Reformed scholars realize that the Kingdom of God in the New Testament was a concept that had long been anticipated from the Old Testament. The Kingdom of God in the New Testament is fulfillment of the Old Testament anticipations. As such we have to go to the Old Testament to view what was expected of this Kingdom of God and there in the OT we find a promised coming Kingdom that is replete with social order concerns. So concerned with the social order is the Kingdom of God that we are even told that the lion will lay down with the lamb.

In Isaiah 65 we read of this present and future Kingdom,

17 “ For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth;
And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind.
18 But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create;
For behold, I create Jerusalem as a rejoicing,
And her people a joy.
19 I will rejoice in Jerusalem,
And joy in My people;
The voice of weeping shall no longer be heard in her,
Nor the voice of crying.
20 “ No more shall an infant from there live but a few days,
Nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days;
For the child shall die one hundred years old,
But the sinner being one hundred years old shall be accursed.
21 They shall build houses and inhabit them;
They shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit.
22 They shall not build and another inhabit;
They shall not plant and another eat;
For as the days of a tree, so shall be the days of My people,
And My elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
23 They shall not labor in vain,
Nor bring forth children for trouble;
For they shall be the descendants of the blessed of the LORD,
And their offspring with them.
24 “ It shall come to pass
That before they call, I will answer;
And while they are still speaking, I will hear.
25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together,
The lion shall eat straw like the ox,
And dust shall be the serpent’s food.
They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain,”
Says the LORD.

This passage has been surrounded by a great deal of debate as to when we can anticipate such blessedness. Pre-millennialist insists that this description comes to pass in the Kingdom of God that Christ establishes once He returns. A-millennialists insist that this description comes to pass in the eschaton. Post-millenialist insist that all that Isaiah speaks of has been inaugurated by and in Christ, and so will come progressively in Christ as His Kingdom, (His new creation of heaven and earth) like the Mustard seed, increasingly reflects what it has already established in an inaugurative fashion, with the consummation being the fulfillment of what has been inaugurated and all that is becoming true progressively regarding this present and future Kingdom of God. Clearly the Old Testament teaches that the Kingdom of God has social order impact.

In the ministry of the Lord Christ, He impacts the social order by refuting and correcting the cultural gatekeepers at every turn. Indeed, in his healing ministry the Lord Christ is demonstrating that the Kingdom of God has impact in the lives of people that they, now being clean, may return to participation in the social order. Clearly the life and ministry of Christ in the New Testament has social order impact.

When St. Paul brings the Gospel of the Kingdom (Resurrection and the Kingdom of God are the two main preaching themes in Acts) to Ephesus (Acts 19) the consequence is that the social order of Ephesus experiences a major shake up in its economic, and political social order. The Kingdom was pressing in on the wicked social order of Ephesus and it made for the threat of change in Ephesus. Earlier in Acts 17 St. Paul again brings the Gospel of the Kingdom message to Athens and again threatens to overturn the social order of Athens.  Clearly the Apostolic ministry in Acts demonstrated the Kingdom of God has social order impact.

That the New Testament doesn’t articulate again what the Old Testament taught about the impact of the Kingdom on social concerns is no reason to toss the Old Testament teaching on the Kingdom of God. Scott should know better.

“When I became a believer in the mid-1970s I did the same thing. I did not know Jeremiah from Matthew. I remember being surprised that there were “minor prophets” in the Bible. I was utterly ignorant of the Christian faith but upon coming to faith in Jesus I immediately imputed my (then leftist) social views to Jesus…

I have my (now more libertarian) social views, which I express in social media and elsewhere but I am constrained as a minister not to seek to use my office to achieve my social goals (to be left alone).”

R. Scott Clark
Escondido R2K Theologian

1.) I wonder if there are any R2K fanboys who are not at their core either Leftist or Libertarian? Do keep in mind how much Libertarianism and Leftism have in common. I’ve never met a R2K advocate who is traditionally conservative in their social views (think R. L. Dabney or T. S. Eliot). Hence, I must tentatively conclude that R2K seems to be a view of the left.  If this is correct then Scott did not change his social views. He merely has softened them somewhat.

2.) Scott is using his office to achieve his social goals. Scott says that the institutional church should be silent quite without realizing that the Church’s silence on social goals speaks volumes. Should sodomites be allowed to marry? The Church, as Christ’s spokesman, insists that Christ has no opinion. Does Christian ethics apply to cloning or the creeping issue of trans-humanism? The Church as Christ’s spokesman, insists that Christ has no opinion. Does Christianity have anything to say about rounding up Gypsies, Kulaks, or Slavs to be put into concentration camps?  The Church as Christ’s spokesman, insists that Christ has no opinion.

Does anybody really want to advance the notion that this silence from the pulpit isn’t equal to moral approval?

3.) Interesting that Scott is Libertarian enough to want to be left alone yet he won’t leave me alone to Preach what God’s word clearly teaches touching social order matters.

“Christians are free to form what the Dutch Reformed used to call societies (committees, organizations) to achieve this end or that but they are not free to impose those agendas on the visible, institutional church by way of programs or in public worship. Christian organizations must stand or fall on their own, without the endorsement of the visible church.”

R. Scott Clark

The problem here with Scott’s observation is that this view provides no boundaries. It is true, Christian societies might be formed but every Christian society one could imagine. There might be one Christian society in favor of overturning Bestiality laws while a different Christian society would be formed to keep Bestiality laws in place. Imagine formation of one Christian society supporting Marxist progressive tax policies while a different Christian society would be formed to oppose Marxism in the Government.  One Christian society could form to champion forcing all children in to Government schools while another Christian society could form to champion laws that demand all public schools be closed. Theoretically all these Christian societies could exist and there would be no Institution — no visible Church — declaiming which are indeed Christian societies and which societies are wolves in sheep’s clothing. What Scott is advocating here is that each Christian society do and each potential individual member of these societies do is what is right in its own eyes. Indeed, Scott would take us back to the time of Judges when there is no King in the land.

As such it really doesn’t matter if the individual Christian is against Marxism. He would be just one voice vis-a-vis other Christian voices that are advocating Marxism as Christian. Tomato vs. Tomatoe … Potato vs. Potatoe.

Even if you individualize or create Christian societies R2K is a flaming disaster.

 

“…whatever social agenda a Christian pursues is one thing but leave the visible, institutional church out of it. The church, as a visible institution, as the embassy of the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven, has no social agenda for the wider civil and cultural world.”

R. Scott Clark
R2K Aficionado

This means that the institutional Church has zero to say on sodomite Marriage in this culture.

This means that the institutional Church has zero to say on women in the Military in this culture.

This means that the institutional Church has zero to say on abortion, euthanasia and other end of life issues for this culture.

This means that the institutional Church has zero to say on the Marxist inspired Government theft, usury, and inflation in this culture.

This means that the institutional Church has zero to say on any law order that is explicitly non Christian.

One could only wish that this would mean that Scott would be consistent and as a officer of the Church quit advancing the R2K social agenda for the Church.

One simply is required to realize that Scott is pursuing a social agenda with this tripe. Scott’s social agenda is the institutional Church’s complete withdrawal from culture and Scott is a hot Social gospeler in pursuit of that social agenda.