Defining Deviance Down

The occurrence of Defining deviancy down as it manifests itself in a social order, happens when the social order standard is violated with such regularity that the inhabitants of the social order are forced to make a decision to either enforce the standard or to change the standard. As enforcing a standard that is routinely violated is almost impossible apart from draconian measures what typically happens is that the standard is changed. Once the standard is changed then a new definition of deviance is embraced, a standard that allows what was previously defined as deviance to be now normalized.

One reason that defining deviancy down works is because eventually there becomes a money interest that supports the new deviancy. The legalization of drugs finds a host of cottage industries that profit by the legalization and soat are willing to contribute money to politicians who will support the new deviancy. In such ways deviancy becomes the new standard.

The consequence of this is that those who refuse to embrace the new definition of deviancy will now be the ones who will be seen as “puritanical,” “mean,” “uncharitable,” and “bigoted.” Once deviancy is defined downward far enough those who refuse to accept the new definitions of deviance will become social outcasts and will suffer economic displacement. Defining deviancy downwards happens because the social order does not have an anchor that will not allow them to drift with the tide. The only place that anchor can be found is in God’s Law word. Disallow God’s Law word as the norm that norms all norms and the consequence will always be a “defining of deviancy down.”

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who popularized the phrase “Defining Deviancy Down” gives an example

“Consider the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. In 1929 in Chicago during Prohibition, four gangsters killed seven gangsters on February. The nation was shocked. The event became legend. It merits not one but two entries in the World Book Encyclopedia.”

Moynihan goes on to explain that in our current social order we experience a “St Valentine’s Day Massacre,” nearly daily and no one blinks. As a social order we have come to accept a higher level of deviancy.

Ambrose contra Symmachus, Piper, Mohler & all R2K

“Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, but those who keep the law strive against them.”

Proverbs 28:4

In the 4th century Emperor Gratian’s removal of the pagan altar of victory from the Senate was the occasion for a great debate between Symmachus, the leader of the pagan aristocracy, and the ablest Italian ecclesiastic, Bishop Ambrose of Milan (St. Ambrose). Symmachus was the classical Liberal in this debate and was arguing against Ambrose that all the ancient pagan religions should be reinstated in Rome and Christianity not be allowed to be the unique religion of the people. Symmachus had all the liberal qualities that arise when liberals are in the minority. Symmachus was tolerant, generous and simply wanted fairness. Symmachus argued that many roads lead to God — why should the old religion of Rome, under whose aegis the Roman state had prospered, not be left in Peace he reasoned.

“We demand then the restoration of that condition of religious affairs which was so long advantageous to the state. Let the rulers of each sect and of each opinion be counted up; a late one(3) practised the ceremonies of his ancestors, a later(4) did not put them away. If the religion of old times does not make a precedent, let the connivance of the last(5) do so….

(Formerly our Emperor) enquired about the origin of the temples, and expressed admiration for their builders. Although he himself followed another religion, he maintained its own for the empire, for everyone has his own customs, everyone his own rites…. Now if a long period gives authority to religious customs, we ought to keep faith with so many centuries, and to follow our ancestors, as they happily followed theirs….

Let me live after my own fashion, for I am free….

We ask, then, for peace for the gods of our fathers and of our country. It is just that all worship should be considered as one. We look on the same stars, the sky is common, the same world surrounds us. What difference does it make by what pains each seeks the truth? We cannot attain to so great a secret by one road; but this discussion is rather for persons at ease, we offer now prayers, not conflict.”

Read those words of the champion of the pagan cause, Symmachus again, and ask yourself how similar they sound to modern day Symmachus like Christian clergy.

“Well, Christians should step back for a moment and recognize that there is something important here at stake. There is no reason why Christians should argue against having a Muslim holiday on the school calendar if there is a significant group or percentage of Muslims in the community – that would simply be fair and it would simply makes sense. We should not claim the privilege of having our religious holidays on the calendar and consider it some kind of Christian victory to keep other religious holidays off the calendar.”

Albert “Symmachus” Mohler

“We express a passion for the supremacy of God… by making clear that God himself is the foundation for our commitment to a pluralistic democratic order-not because pluralism is his ultimate ideal, but because in a fallen world, legal coercion will not produce the kingdom of God. Christians agree to make room for non-Christian faiths (including naturalistic, materialistic faiths), not because commitment to God’s supremacy is unimportant, but because it must be voluntary, or it is worthless. We have a God-centered ground for making room for atheism.”

John Symmachus Piper

Contrary to Symmachus of old, and modern day Symmachus’, Ambrose was the man who stood upon the principle that Christianity as the one true religion must by necessity eclipse all other religions as the God of the Bible eclipses all other gods. Ambrose dealt with Symmachus’ arguments one by one exposing the fallacy in each of them. In that context he addressed Theodosius as to the need to put away the old pagan of religions as they were empty and ineffectual rites. In 392, after Theodosius gained control of the whole empire, he issued an official proscription of paganism, forbidding anyone in any place whatsoever, even in private, to exercise any of the ancient rites of the ancient religion. This action supporting the Christian faith the “Christian” clergy Piper and Mohler would be aghast over.

Ambrose argued against Symmachus, Piper, and Mohler such,

But, says Symmachus, Piper, and Mohler, let the altars be restored to the images, and their ornaments to the shrines. Let this demand be made of one who shares in their superstitions; a Christian Emperor has learnt to honour the altar of Christ alone. Why do they exact of pious hands and faithful lips the ministry to their sacrilege? Let the voice of our Emperor utter the Name of Christ alone, and speak of Him only, Whom he is conscious of, for, “the King’s heart is in the hand of the Lord.”(1) Has any heathen Emperor raised an altar to Christ? While they demand the restoration of things which have been, by their own example they show us how great reverence Christian Emperors ought to pay to the religion which they follow, since heathen ones offered all to their superstitions.

I have answered those who provoked me as though I had not been provoked, for my object was to refute the Memorial, not to expose superstition. But let their very memorial make you, O Emperor, more careful. For after narrating of former princes, that the earlier of them practised the ceremonies of their fathers, and the later did not abolish them; and saying in addition that, if the religious practice of the older did not make a precedent, the connivance of the later ones did; it plainly showed what you owe, both to your faith, viz., that you should not follow the example of heathen rites, and to your affection, that you should not abolish the decrees of your brother. For if for their own side alone they have praised the connivance of those princes, who, though Christians, yet in no way abolished the heathen decrees, how much more ought you to defer to brotherly love, so that you, who ought to overlook some things even if you did not approve them in order not to detract from your brother’s statutes, should now maintain what you judge to be in agreement both with your own faith, and the bond of brotherhood.

Now, it is true that our leaders are hardly Christian but the principle we see in Ambrose is a Christian contending that the one true faith should be honored as the recognized unique faith of the people. This is contrary to the argument that Symmachus, Piper, and Mohler (and all of R2K) advance when they contend that the one true faith of the people is that all the faiths are equal and should be equally honored.

Who will you stand with? Christian Ambrose of Milan or the consummate Liberals Symmachus, Piper, Mohler and R2K?

The full discussion between Symmachus and Ambrose can be found here,

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/ambrose-sym.asp

Luke 11:42f — Unintended Purposes

Introduction

Using something that was made for one purpose in a way other then what it was made for.

Winnie the Pooh hair brush that I have stolen from my daughter to use for my beard.

Using a hammer to fix a laser printer

Bobby Pins = Inner Ear Scratchers

I dug a hole with an umbrella when I was young

Frisbee as a dinner plate

This morning we want to consider the ways that the Pharisees ended up serving the opposite purpose for which they were intended.

Read Luke 11:42-51

WOE — An exclamation of judgment upon God’s enemies, or of misfortune on oneself, or, in the ministry of Jesus Christ, of sadness over those who fail to recognise the true misery of their condition.

Woe to those whose religion blinds themselves and misleads others Lk 11:52 See also Mt 23:13-33; Lk 11:42-51

In this case in Luke 11 it may well be the case that Jesus is pronouncing judgment while at the time expressing sadness over those who fail to recognise the true misery of their condition.

I.) Woe #1 — Pharisees have missed the point

“Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone (Luke 11:42).

The Religious experts and cultural gatekeepers were so focused on the important minutia — mint, rue, and cummin — (comparatively speaking) that they missed the larger purposes in the midst of the important minutia. The Lord Christ did not say to ignore the important minutia but he did clearly communicate that one can get so bogged down in details that one misses the forest for all the trees.

This is why the Lord Christ told them at another time that you ““strained gnats and swallowed camels” (Matthew 23:24).

So what was the larger point that the Lord Christ is faulting them for missing.

Luke 11:41 be generous to the poor, and everything will be clean for you.

There was a lack of generosity on their part. There were people in genuine need but they were being bypassed so that the religious experts could pad their pocketbook and escape their responsibility.

Another example of this is in

Mark 7:9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[c] your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’[d] and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[e] 11 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— 12 then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

ATS Bible Dictionary

The son would say to his needy parents, “It is a gift- whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me,” that is, I have already devoted to God that which you request of me, Mark 7:11; and the traditionary teachings of the Jewish doctors would enforce such a vow, and not suffer him to do aught for his parents against it, although it was contrary to nature and reason, and made void the law of God as to honoring parents, Matthew 15:3-9. The Pharisees, and the Talmudists their successors, permitted even debtors to defraud their creditors by consecrating their debt to God; as if the property were their own, and not rather the right of their creditor.

The point of application is to look not only to our own needs but also to the needs of others … the needs of others who very likely cannot do us a favor back.

Illustration — Two Seminary Students tithing to one another.

II.) Woe #2 — Pharisees have a wrong preoccupation

“Woe to you Pharisees, because you love the most important seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces (Luke 11:43).

Already a theme is developing here. That theme is that the Pharisees had prioritized themselves. They were their own gods and all of their reality was spinning around them. The problem here, when reduced to its essence, is that they were selfish idolaters worshiping themselves.

There is another sub theme going on here and that is the idea that the religious gatekeepers were pimping it up for their own clique. While Jesus identifies them as “full of greed and wickedness” here and elsewhere as full of “dead men’s bones,” they moved in a context that never would have told them that truth.

Instead they were part of a “mutual admiration society,” and that society played the game of “you stroke me, and I’ll stroke you.” So, they’d attend, for example, their version of the Oscars or their version of Synod and the mutual admiration society would go out of their way to compliment or exalt their own who were also members of their clique … their mutual admiration society.

The problem here again though, is that they were doing this all at the expense of looking out for and caring for those in need.

It is the same type of thing that Jesus gets at in the Parable of the good Samaritan. The fault there was that the religious gatekeepers took no pity upon the one in need, to busy to do for themselves or for members of their own mutual admiration society.

So … they were motivated and driven by their desire to have the approval of their fellow members of the mutual admiration society, rather than God’s.

“they loved the most important seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces”

We should pause to note the consequence of this sniveling groveling for recognition from fellow members of their cult clique.

1.) A loss of the ability to speak the truth

One is not recognized by the mutual admiration society when one speaks truth to fellow mutual admiration society members. As such one simply ceases to speak the truth and eventually, if practiced constantly over a long course of time, one loses not only the ability to speak the truth but also the ability to recognize the truth.

At bottom all of this, for the religious gatekeepers, is not only about padding their credibility with the Mutual Admiration society but it is also about avoiding the opposite and that is the curse of being seen as irrelevant, unimportant and insignificant to those who comprise the mutual admiration society. Prophets have always been hated and rejected and the religious gatekeepers in this passage would rather disassociate themselves from the truth then to experience the fate of being despised and rejected.

WARNING

Now, the danger in all this is that it could be the case that people who hear this kind of message resolve to be as insulting as possible in the name of “telling the truth.”

First, remember that Jesus did not speak this way to all men. This kind of speaking was reserved for the religious gatekeepers who were locking everyone else out from true religion.

Second, remember that there is a time and a place for everything under the sun. Not every opportunity to speak like this may be the best time to speak like this.

Thirdly, none of this overturns Scriptures requirement that our speech must be seasoned as with salt.

Fourthly, remember we said at the outset that the woes were pronounced in the context of Jesus sadness that these men he is speaking to do not recognize the true misery of their condition. It is comparatively easy to get righteously indignant but perhaps we should never speak this way until we are genuinely saddened that we have to speak this way.

III.) Woe #3 — Pharisees Have Inverted Their Purpose

“Woe to you, because you are like unmarked graves, which men walk over without knowing it” (Luke 11:44).

In order to make full sense of this verse we have to correlate it with a passages in the law,

Numbers 19:16

16 “Anyone out in the open who touches someone who has been killed with a sword or someone who has died a natural death, or anyone who touches a human bone or a grave, will be unclean for seven days.

So … the Lord Christ is telling them that people who come in contact with them were defiled.

The stated purpose of the Pharisees was to lead the people and nation back into righteousness and holiness but instead they were having the exact opposite effect. And this was being done without even the courtesy of they themselves being marked as “graves.”

Keep in mind the obvious that the problem here wasn’t with their physical person but rather was with what they were communicating and teaching to the people.

Woe unto a people or nation when their putative leaders in holiness and righteousness becomes a means by which they are infected by a cesspool of uncleanness.

So, the Pharisees were themselves both unclean (sinful) and defiling to others. Per Numbers 19, those who came into contact with the Pharisees were rendered unclean. Doubtless this is why the Lord Christ says to them elsewhere,

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.”

They, who were intended to be a blessing, were a curse.

That which the Pharisees prided themselves in being and doing was the very opposite of the reality of the matter.
This pronouncement by the Lord Christ may have been the deepest cut of all to the Jewish Ministerial Corps.

We’ve talked about this before … but will mention it again here … those who abandon God’s law word begin to occupy an upside down, inside-out world and in that “Alice in Wonderland World” everything becomes inverted.

“In A Pilgrim’s Regress, C.S. Lewis wrote about a man who ordered milk and eggs from a waiter in a restaurant. After tasting the milk he commented to the waiter that it was delicious. The waiter replied, “Milk is only the secretion of a cow, just like urine and feces.” After eating the eggs he commented on the tastiness of the eggs. Again the waiter responded that eggs are only a by-product of a chicken. After thinking about the waiter’s comment for a moment the man responded, “You lie. You don’t know the difference between what nature has meant for nourishment, and what it meant for garbage.”

The Spirit of the Age when uninformed by the Spirit of Christ always teaches this kind of upside down world, where good is evil and evil is good. Bertrand Russel, the 20th Century renown Atheist caught something of how this achieved methodologically speaking,

“The social psychologist … will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at: first, that influence of home are obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before
the age ten. It is for the scientist to make these maxims precise and discover how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for more than one generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies of policeman”

This is the kind of thing that happens when a person, a family, or a culture falls into the Rabbit hole.

Luther, echoing the point that the Lord Christ is making here said,

“It is the nature of all hypocrites and false prophets to create a conscience where there is none, and to cause conscience to disappear where it does exist.”

We should not only be on the lookout for this in others or in the culture around us. We should also pray fervently that God would press His finger upon where we are living in the upside down world… where we have become unmarked graves. We are … I am … also a carrier of upsidedownitis. May God be pleased to open our eyes so we might repent.

So … the Pharisees had inverted their purpose. How much more the modern Church today?

Examples,

1.) ” Do forget the OT, please. Seriously. You must understand that Romans 12 – 13 and the rest of the NT is a radical departure from OT Israel. Israel’s mandate was to make the land of Canaan (and other nations by extension) submit to its rule and reign. The NT Church is to submit to the reign of the nations. These two mandates are not only different, they are opposite.”

2.) “We express a passion for the supremacy of God… by making clear that God himself is the foundation for our commitment to a pluralistic democratic order … We have a God-centered ground for making room for atheism.”

3.) “There is no reason why Christians should argue against having a Muslim holiday on the school calendar if there is a significant group or percentage of Muslims in the community – that would simply be fair and it would simply makes sense. We should not claim the privilege of having our religious holidays on the calendar and consider it some kind of Christian victory to keep other religious holidays off the calendar.”

4.) “Here we have two people who desire to be married and what does the Church tell them? What does the Church say? The Church says ‘no.’” “Can you believe that the Culture and Corporations are fully invested in giving homosexuals “marriage” rights and yet the Church is lagging so far behind?

Conclusion

The Destructive Nature of Affirmative Action

The fault with affirmative action is,

1.) that by by trying to compensate a group for past injustices, affirmative action rewards people who have suffered no individual harm, and does so at the expense of those who have done no individual harm.

2.) that it proposes to achieve cultural color blindness by way of only seeing color. Recently, an Institution that I am associated with, has encouraged people to be colorblind and then turned around and resolved to gain racial-gender equality by hiring people because of their plumbing and pigment in order to reach a benchmark gender – racial goal.

3.) that it guarantees a lack of self respect and injury among those advanced via affirmative action so much so that no sense of accomplishment can ever be arrived at since the one advanced wrongly always knows he did not earn what he putatively achieved.

4.) that it punishes achievement and rewards mediocrity.

5.) that it guarantees tensions since those advanced, via affirmative action, will never be looked upon as being worthy of their positions since it is widely assumed that all those advanced via affirmative action are only where they are at because of their incidental attributes and not because of their abilities.

6.) that it continues racism and genderism due to how it subtly communicates that the beneficiaries of affirmative action are not qualified enough to achieve without being given advantages over people more qualified than them. This is commonly called “Tokenism.”

7.) that in destroying the natural nexus between ability, hard work, and achievement it disincentivizes hard work and creates a cynical citizenry pertaining to the professional class.

Thankful for the Explicitness of Rev. Dr. Pastor Lee — R2K Unleashed X

3. Do forget the OT, please. Seriously. You must understand that Romans 12 – 13 and the rest of the NT is a radical departure from OT Israel. Israel’s mandate was to make the land of Canaan (and other nations by extension) submit to its rule and reign. The NT Church is to submit to the reign of the nations. These two mandates are not only different, they are opposite. The prophets were calling the kings to account because it was in their portfolio, it was a theocracy, and the “King” was a type of Christ. NT prophets are preachers, and Caesar is not in their portfolio. Only sin in and among God’s people. This is why Paul says that God himself instituted the civil authority, they are God’s servants, and they answer directly to him, not to him through the church. Romans 13 is not a command. It is a description. They are doing this, now, apart from the Bible or the Church. God has given them sufficient knowledge of good and evil to fulfill their office since the fall.

Dr. Rev. Pastor Brian “Latin reader, no coward, Titles indifferent” Lee

1.) Here we find an explicit dispensationalizing of the OT and a hermeneutic of radical discontinuity. Now, R2K may apply their dispensationalism in different ways but the idea of counseling someone to “Do forget the OT, please. Seriously,” is a Dispensational impulse.

2.) This provides a window into why the Republication theory of the Mosaic Covenant is part and parcel of R2K. R2K needs to slough off any and all general equity talk that remains from the Mosaic covenant, as well as all concrete application of the OT Law to the Post-Resurrection public square. The R2K Republication theory of the Mosaic Covenant serves that purpose. We can make distinctions between R2K and the Mosaic Republication but we must keep before us that the innovative theology that is R2K can not be “successful” apart from their innovative reading of the Mosaic covenant as a Republication with it’s upper and lower registers and its “merit here” but not “merit there” “reasoning.” What the republication of the Mosaic covenant theory offers R2K is the ability to disregard the Mosaic covenant law in any of its concrete expressions, while still retaining the Mosaic law as somehow abstractly abstracted from the Mosaic covenant.

3.) The way that Romans 12 and 13 is read by Lee is yet another example of innovation. I would challenge the reader to read the way that Christopher Goodman read Romans 13 which was fairly typical of men like Knox and a share of the Puritans.

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/goodman/obeyed.htm

Harold Berman offers a good work that traces how the Reformation impacted the Law and Social Order of Nations. Berman traces out how the Reformation applied the insights of God’s Law as expressed in all of Scripture for the ordering of the civil realm.

http://www.amazon.com/Law-Revolution-Protestant-Reformations-Tradition/dp/0674022300/ref=pd_sim_b_6?ie=UTF8&refRID=0HJ54FNAXBDMQ1ZDWVVR

Lee is asserting that his innovative reading of Romans 12-13 should just be accepted upon his word but his assertion is just not accurate.

We need to keep in mind that it is incumbent to read all of the bible in context with all of the Bible. Just consider though how Lee and R2K does not do this. They excise the Mosaic covenant. They tell us to forget the Old Testament … Seriously. They dispensationalize the Scripture. Sure, if you read Romans 13 presupposing your own historically innovative and mistaken matrix naturally one is going to find Romans 12-13 convincingly proving that the Church’s only role is to submit to the anti-Christ State. Lee has need to heed Van Prinsterer’s warning of the need to avoid “serious conceptual confusion when it comes to Church and State and their mutual relation and the misuse that is being made … of the no less apostolic admonition, ‘Let every soul be subject to the higher powers,’ with the result that people run the risk of …. lapsing into a passiveness which is injurious alike to civil liberties and law and order and which in no wise resembles genuine Christian submission.”

All I can do is to beg the reader to look into these things and not accept the assertions of R2K-philes.

4.) Lee’s statement that in the OT the Nations were to ruled by Israel’s religion while in the NT the Israel of God is to b ruled by the pagan religion of the Nations is breathtaking.

“Israel’s mandate was to make the land of Canaan (and other nations by extension) submit to its rule and reign. The NT Church is to submit to the reign of the nations. These two mandates are not only different, they are opposite.”

Please keep in mind, dear reader, that the reign of a nation never happens in a vacuum. To be ruled by a Nation, by necessity, means to be ruled by the religion of said Nation since reigning, like law, has to be informed by some religion or worldview. When Lee tells us that the Church is to submit to the reign of the Nations, he is, by necessity, telling us that the Church is to be ruled by the religion that informs that reign. In my hearing that statement has the sound of treason about it.

Part of our difference here is eschatology but not even amillennialists of old never went so far as to suggest that the Israel of God is to be ruled by the pagan religion of the Nations.

“The thought of the kingdom of God implies the subjection of the entire range of human life in all its forms and spheres to the ends of religion. The kingdom reminds us of the absoluteness, the pervasiveness, the unrestricted dominion, which of right belong to all true religion. It proclaims that religion, and religion alone, can act as the supreme unifying, centralizing factor in the life of man, as that which binds all together and perfects all by leading it to its final goal in the service of God.” (page 194)

Geerhardus Vos
The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom of God and the Church

It is Lee’s militant amillennialism (another characteristic of R2K) that informs him. The Nations can not be ruled by the Church’s Christian faith (as opposed to being ruled by the Church) since such ruling can not happen until Christ’s returns. Indeed, for R2K, Christ ruling over concrete Nations in time and space is an impossibility. Hence their hatred for Christendom. You see, their eschatology can not allow it.

Even if you are amillennialist, dear reader, will you close ranks with Lee or Vos on this matter?

5.) Lee’s statement about the mandates being opposite brings us to another conclusion and that is that R2K and standard historical Reformed theology are also opposite. The extremity of the R2K position makes it another Reformed religion. The similarities between R2K and standard historical Reformed theology are only linguistic. R2K has poured new meaning into all the old words and phrases so that even though we may use the same words the meaning is entirely different. One simply cannot rummage around and change beginning principles (covenant, law, denial of general equity, etc.) of our undoubted catholic Christian faith and end up with the same faith.

6.) The fact that Caesar remains in our Portfolio is demonstrated by the fact that in a Constitutional Republic we Christians (Citizens of America and Heaven at the same time) are inclusive of those who are Caesar’s employer. Being Caesar’s employer means that we take of what we learn from our Catechism (LD 40), as it is taught in home and Church, and we apply it in the civil realm. No one denies that a distinction between the two realms exist but to bifurcate the two realms the way R2K does approaches being unfaithful.

As Exodus 18:21 says “But select capable men from all the people–men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain–and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens.” America was set up in this republican form of government. Christians are to be involved in the selection of capable God fearing people to represent society. You will find that the Bible teaches that legitimate civil (not criminal) government is an ordinance of God, and tyrants have no claim upon conscientious submission of Christians in Romans 13.

Ridderbos, an amillennialist, explains how this non-bifurcation realm reality works where the Kingdom of God interacts and transforms the world,

“But the Kingdom of God also defines the Church in its relation to the world. The Church has a foundation of its own, has its own rules, its own mode of existence. But precisely because of the fact that it is the Church of the Kingdom, it has also a positive relation with the world, for the Kingdom of God is seeking acceptance in the world.

A sower went forth to sow. And the field is the world. That is why the Church is seeking catholicity. And this catholicity has a double aspect, one of extension and one of intensity, in accordance with the nature of the Kingdom. So the Church is as wide as the world. The horizons of the world are also the horizons of the Church; therefore its urge to carry on missionary work, to emigrate, to cross frontiers. This is because the Church is the
Church of the Kingdom. She is not allowed to be self-contained.

But there is also an intensive catholicity of the Church because of the Kingdom. The Church is related to life as a whole. It is not a drop of oil on troubled waters. It has a mission in this world and in the entire structure of the world. This statement does not arise from cultural optimism. This is the confession of the kingship of Christ. For this reason, too, the Church is the Church of the Kingdom.

And the third remark is my concluding one: as Church of the Kingdom, the Church is seeking the future. She has received her talents for the present. But her Lord who went into a far country will return. Her waiting for Him consists of working. Otherwise she will hear: What have you done with my talent?”

Herman Ridderbos,
“When the Time Had Fully Come: Studies in New Testament Theology”

Of course the militant amillennialists cannot agree with this quote because for the militant amillennialists the Church and the Kingdom are exactly co-extensive. They are one and the same.

7.) Nobody is advocating that the Civil Magistrate answer to the Church. It’s hard to believe that Lee would make that statement since it is widely known that the Reformed vision, as it came to America, was neither Church over State, nor State over Church. The Reformed vision had it, as it came to the America, that Church and State while distinct were interdependent spheres, each under sovereign God. The State’s end was unto providing Justice to God’s people as God defined Justice, and the Church’s role was to the end of ministering grace to God’s people by word and sacrament in the Christian Church. Each had their own place but neither was cut off and bifurcated from the other. The traditional election cycle sermon is one proof of that.

8.) Finally, the 20th century as the bloodiest century in human history wherein more people were killed by Governments than all other centuries combined completely mocks Lee’s statement, “God has given them (The State) sufficient knowledge of good and evil to fulfill their office since the fall.

This is part of the problem with much of the current ministerial corps. They seemingly have so little knowledge of History. Has Lee never heard of Lenin and Stalin and their murderous purges where tens of millions of people were tortured and killed? Has Lee never heard of Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Hitler, and any number of other Tyrants who certainly did not have sufficient knowledge of good and evil to fulfill their office?

What Lee and R2K is doing with that kind of magnificently stupid statement is to absolutize the State as God walking on the earth and in doing so may be guilty of fostering idolatry in God’s people. No Institution … no person has absolute authority. All authority is dependent upon and must be in submission unto God’s revealed authority.

Look, in the end R2K is a different Reformed religion. The Understanding of God is different. The understanding of the Kingship of Christ is different. The eschatology is different. The ecclesiology is different. The Hermeneutic is different. The understanding of covenant is different. The understanding of the place and the role of the law is different. It is just a different religion.