Iron Ink

Is David Cameron Blind or Stupid in Not Being Able to See His Own Religion?

First, any strategy to defeat extremism must confront, head on, the extreme ideology that underpins it. We must take its component parts to pieces – the cultish worldview, the conspiracy theories, and yes, the so-called glamorous parts of it as well.

In doing so, let’s not forget our strongest weapon: our own liberal values. We should expose their extremism for what it is – a belief system that glorifies violence and subjugates its people – not least Muslim people.

We should contrast their bigotry, aggression and theocracy with our values. We have, in our country, a very clear creed and we need to promote it much more confidently. Wherever we are from, whatever our background, whatever our religion, there are things we share together.

We are all British. We respect democracy and the rule of law. We believe in freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of worship, equal rights regardless of race, sex, sexuality or faith.

We believe in respecting different faiths but also expecting those faiths to support the British way of life. These are British values. And are underpinned by distinct British institutions. Our freedom comes from our Parliamentary democracy. The rule of law exists because of our independent judiciary. This is the home that we are building together.

Whether you are Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Christian or Sikh, whether you were born here or born abroad, we can all feel part of this country – and we must now all come together and stand up for our values with confidence and pride.

And as we do so, we should together challenge the ludicrous conspiracy theories of the extremists. The world is not conspiring against Islam;

David Cameron
Prime Minister — United Kingdom
Extremism Speech — July 2015

Not being up on everything all the time this “extremism speech” back in July slipped my attention. This piece is jaw dropping incredible in terms of what is left unsaid in the text. I just could leave this alone without commenting on the absurdity.

1.) Cameron keeps invoking English “liberal values” and how those liberal values should be trumpeted in order to overturn the worldview of the extremists. Cameron even evokes the idea of a shared creed. In point of fact what Cameron has done here is he has invoked Liberalism as a religion to overturn the religion of the extremists, for it is only religion that can produce values and creed. Cameron has told his listeners that the religion of English Liberalism, with its creed and values, is superior to the religion of the extremists. Indeed so superior is this religion of English liberalism that all other religions can only operate in England as long as those religions submit themselves to the religion of English liberalism with its values and creed.

But think about that for just a moment. Does one really own their own religion if their own religion has to submit to the creed and values of another religion?

2.) If “Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Christian or Sikh …must now all come together and stand up for our values” and for the shared English Liberal creed then what is the difference between Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Christian or the Sikh religions except a few rituals? You see what is going on here is that the religion of English Liberalism with its values and creed is redefining what it means to be Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Christian and Sikh. Are we to really believe that the values and creed of the Muslim faith, Hindu faith, Jewish faith, Christian faith and Sikh faith are so similar that they can perfectly align with the religious values and creed of English liberalism? If Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Christian or Sikh, all share a common creed and values with the religion of English Liberalism what is the need for these other faiths?

3.) Now, about those shared values. It is really the case that all these faith have a shared value of abortion which glorifies violence, that the English religion of Liberalism champions? Do all these religion have the shared value of equality for all those of different sexuality? Inasmuch as Cameron, as a adherent to the religion of English Liberalism, is seeking to make Islam accept these values in England in that much he is most certainly conspiring against Islam.

4.) Cameron, as an adherent to the religion of English Liberalism with its value and creed, insist that this religion of his allows for “freedom of speech.” If that is true then why has the Home Secretary of England, in contradiction of putative English religious values and creed, blocked the entry into England of Robert Spence, Pamela Geller, and Michael Savage because they want to speak out against Islam? Does English religious values and creed allow for the freedom of speech that speaks against the English religious values and creed?

5.) Apparently English religious values and creed makes for a theocracy which does not allow for any gods that do not agree with their values and creed and for the kind of violence they glorify.

6.) We see here that there is very little difference between the extremists and the liberal. They each desire that all other religions bow to their creed and values. They each desire to scrub England of its uniquely Christian past in favor of their own competing religions. The disagreement between the extremists that Cameron complains about and the English liberals is the difference between a Trotsky and a Stalin. The disagreement is on methodology and not on substance. Both the extremists and the English liberals favor their religion to be the reigning religion. The English liberals desire to subjugate people every bit as much as the extremists they complain of.

In the words of C. William Knot Yielding,

“The liberals envision a multicultural state in which everyone subscribes to liberal ideals. The Jihadists envision a utopian Moslem state in which everyone adheres to Islamic law. It is the mythical belief of the liberals that the Jihadists are not the real Moslems. In the liberals’ eyes of unreality the Jihadists are the bad Moslems who won’t settle down and enjoy the fruits of multicultural Liberaldom.”

Any Christianity that shares values and creed with either Cameron’s religious Liberalism or the Jihadists religious Islam is a Christian that fails to understand his or her own faith.

Christ the King

I.) Inescapability of Kingship

Here in John 18:33f we see the idea of the Inescapability of Kingship. The Jews will not have this man Jesus rule over them as King but that does not mean the category of Kingship disappears. It is never a question of whether men will be ruled by a Sovereign or not. It is only a question of which sovereign … which King will they be ruled by.

Here in John 18-19 the choice for the Jews is either the Lord Christ or Barabbas? The people reject the king for a insurrectionist. (John 18:38f)

After he had said this, he went back outside to the Jews and told them, “I find no guilt in him. ³⁹But you have a custom that I should release one man for you at the Passover. So do you want me to release to you the King of the Jews?”⁴⁰They cried out again, “Not this man, but Barabbas!” Now Barabbas was a insurrectionist.

You see what the Jews have done here is that they have said we would rather have a insurrectionist than the Lord Christ. This makes sense for in that choice they were revealing their own Jewish insurrectionist spirit that would rule over God’s sovereign rule.

Later Pilate asks the Jews again, “Shall I crucify your king?”(John 19:15) In their reply, “we have no king but Caesar” (John 19:15). In this St. John shows that the Jews’ rejection of Jesus leads them to deny God’s kingship and embrace Roman rule. Here the Jews have decided that the Tyranny of the Roman State is to be preferred above the Kingship of the Lord Christ.

In these two choices of someone besides Christ as King (Barrabas the Insurrectionist and Caesar the Tyrant) we have the only two choices presented to us when we refuse the Kingship of Christ. If we will not bow to Christ the King we will bow to either the Tyranny of Centralized Authority (Caesar) or the Tyranny of individual anarchism (Barrabas).

In the end, Pilate, as representative of all Gentiles and the Jews, intent on Revolting against God, crucify the King but in doing so they do not get rid of the idea of Kingship. Instead they embrace Kingship… the Kingship of the Insurrectionist autonomous individual and the Kingship of the Tyrant.

These choices of Individual anarchy as King over Christ as King or the Statist Tyrant as King over Christ as King can be embodied by a couple quotes.

The anarchist autonomous individual as King is seen in a quote from one Jeremy Rifkin. Jeremy Rifkin, has been an adviser to the European Union since 2002 and has also been head of the largest global economic development team in the world.

In 1983 at a point in the maturation of the 60’s cultural revolution, he declared in “A New Word– A New World”:

“We no longer feel ourselves to be guests in someone else’s home and therefore obliged to make our behavior conform with a set of preexisting cosmic rules. It is our creation now. We make the rules. We establish the parameters of reality. We create the world, and because we do, we no longer feel beholden to outside forces. We no longer have to justify our behavior, for we are now the architects of the universe. We are responsible for nothing outside ourselves, for we are the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever.”

Jeremy Rifkin

Rifkin embodies the same spirit as those Jews who would have Barabbas instead of Christ. They would have themselves as insurrectionist Kings over Christ.

On the other hand if we will not take Christ as King and if we will not have the autonomous insurrectionist individual ala Barabbas as King we will have no choice but to invest the State with Kingship. Rushdoony understood this well and this point was one of the pillars of his ministry,

If there be no God with a governing law over all things then a man-made world order must replace him. The alternative to God and His law is inevitably a humanistic law and world order. An obvious fact that scholars shy away from is this: when Darwin abolished God by reducing the universe to chance there had to be logically a substitute for God. That substitute has been socialism, statism. When there is no God to predestine and control all things, then man and the state must do so. So we have a world-wide explosion of statism with one goal in mind, to replace God with statist controls and regulations, and just as God’s predestination that works from within determines all things the modern state is determined to govern, regulate, and prescribe all things. From the womb to the tomb, from cradle to grave, we are in a religious war! Whose predestination will prevail? That of Almighty God or that of the state? Take your choice.

RJR
Justice & World Law

So there it is. If we will not have Christ’s Kingship we will not escape from being ruled. If we will not have Christ the King then we will have either the Insurrectionist and Revolutionary as King or we will have the State as King. The Bomb-thrower or the Tyrant. It is never a question of if we will be ruled by a King, it is only a question of what King we will be ruled by.

II.) The Character of Christ’s Kingship

Part of the irony of John’s presentation of the trial and crucifixion is that Pilate uses his own authority to declare Jesus’ kingship. Pilate places an inscription over the cross, “Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews” (John 19:19). The chief priests protest, asking Pilate to clarify that this was only what Jesus claimed. But Pilate refuses their request with a solemn pronouncement, “What I have written, I have written” (19:22).

In this way, John crafts his narrative so that Jesus’ kingship becomes most visible in his crucifixion. It is as if his crucifixion is his enthronement as king, the moment at which the declaration of his kingship is made public. Although all four Gospels record the inscription over the cross (cf. Matthew 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38),

Here we might note we have the theme of the Theology of the Cross. The Great King enthroned upon a stake. Luther’s God hidden.

And yet we must keep mind also the words of the Lord Christ as King right before His ascension when He spoke with His Kingly authority saying “All authority has been given to me in Heaven and Earth.” There we see His Kingship expressed in his requirement that all the Nations should be discipled.

The Kingship of Christ is expressed both in the dark night of Crucifixion and in the glorious ascension of Christ.

Continuing with this point of the Character of Christ’s Kingship we must speak especially to John 18:36, one of those passages that is so often mishandled.

³⁶Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”

What many many Christians want to make this mean is that Christ has no interest in this world. We often hear this mindset when we advocate for Christ the King’s cause in the public realm. Here we are tenaciously championing the King’s Word and some clergy member will say, with a deep growling pious tone, “Brother, you shouldn’t get so exercised about these worldly matters, after all Jesus said, “My Kingdom is not of this world.”

For example one Reformed Seminary Professor at a flagship Reformed Seminary recently wrote,

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. Dr. R. Scott Clark

You see, the point here is that the Kingship of Christ as revealed in Scripture is not to be championed by the Church. Christ is King but not so much that the Church should champion the King’s cause.

Another Reformed Seminary Professor from the same flagship Reformed Seminary likewise took on the Kingship of Christ when he said publicly,

“Although a contractual relationship denies God’s will for human dignity, I could affirm domestic partnerships as a way of protecting people’s legal and economic security.”

“The challenge there is that two Christians who hold the same beliefs about marriage as Christians may appeal to neighbor-love to support or to oppose legalization of same-sex marriage.”

Dr. Mike Horton — Reformed Theologian
R2K Practitioner
Professor at Westminster West — California

You see, this is just a jettisoning of the idea of the Kingship of Christ in the public square.

Contrast these quotes with the words of another Reformed Seminary Professor of another Generation,

“And if Christ is really King, exercising original and immediate jurisdiction over the State as really as he does over the Church, it follows necessarily that the general denial or neglect of his rightful lordship, any prevalent refusal to obey that Bible which is the open lawbook of his kingdom, must be followed by political and social as well as by moral and religious ruin. If professing Christians are unfaithful to the authority of their Lord in their capacity as citizens of the State, they cannot expect to be blessed by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in their capacity as members of the Church.”

~A.A. Hodge, from “Popular Lectures on Theological Themes”

John 18:36 does not teach that the Lord Christ abdicated His authority in the public square. What is being taught in this phrase was captured by the Scholar B. F. Wescott,

B. F. Wescott speaking of John 18:36 could comment,

“Yet He did claim a sovereignty, a sovereignty of which the spring and the source was not of earth but of heaven. My Kingdom is not of thisworld (means it) does not derive its origin or its support from earthly sources.”

The Gospel According To John — pg. 260

Dr. Greg Bahnsen echoing Wescott’s work wrote,

“‘My kingdom is not of [ek: out from] this world,’” is a statement about the source — not the nature — of His reign, as the epexegetical ending of the verse makes obvious: ‘My kingdom is not from here [enteuthen].’ The teaching is not that Christ’s kingdom is wholly otherworldly, but rather that it originates with God Himself (not any power or authority found in creation.”

Dr. Greg Bahnsen
God & Politics — pg. 27

John 18:36 is often put forth as a defeater passage for the comprehensive Kingship of the Lord Jesus over this world. Bahnsen clearly shows here, quite in agreement with the Greek scholar B. F. Westcott, that God’s Kingdom, as it manifests itself in this world, is energized by a source outside this world. This is important to emphasize because many people read John 18:36 as proof that the Kingdom of Jesus does not and should not express itself in this world. Often this verse is appealed to in order to prove that God’s Kingdom is only “spiritual” and as such Christians shouldn’t be concerned about what are perceived as “non-spiritual” realms. Support for such thinking, if there is any, must come from passages other than John 18:36.

What we get from some contemporary Calvinists, is the quote of Christ telling Pilate that ‘His Kingdom is not of this World,’ as if that is to end all conversation on the Lordship of Christ over all cultural endeavors. What is forgotten is the way that John often uses the word ‘World.’ John often uses the word ‘World’ with a sinister significance to communicate a disordered reality in grip of the Devil set in opposition to God. If that is the way that the word ‘world’ is being used in John 18:36 then we can understand why Jesus would say that His Kingdom ‘was not of this world.’ The Kingdom of Jesus will topple the Kingdoms of this disordered world changing them to be the Kingdoms of His ordered world, but it won’t be done by the disordered methodology of this World and so Jesus can say, “My Kingdom is not of this World.” Hopefully, we can see that such a statement doesn’t mean that Christ’s Kingdom has no effect in this world or that Christ’s Kingdom can’t overcome the world.

John 18:36 is often appealed to in order to prove that the Kingdom of God is a private individual spiritual personal reality that does not impinge on public square practice(s) of peoples or nations corporately considered. Those who appeal to John 18:36 in this way are prone thus to insist that God’s Word doesn’t speak to the public square practice(s) of peoples or nations since such an appeal (according to this thinking) would be an attempt to wrongly make God’s Kingdom of this world.

The problem with this though is it that it is a misreading of the passage. When Jesus say’s “My Kingdom is not of this world,” his use of the word “world” here is not spatial. Jesus is not saying that His Kingdom does not impact planet earth. What Jesus is saying is that His Kingdom does not find its source of authority from the world as it lies in Adam.

Jesus brings a Kingdom to this world that is in antithetical opposition to the Kingdom of Satan that presently characterizes this world in this present wicked age. The Kingdom that Jesus brings has its source of authority in His Father’s Word. As a result of Christ bringing His Kingdom with His advent there are two Kingdoms that are vying for supremacy on planet earth. Scripture teaches that the Kingdom of the “age to come” that characterizes Christ’s present Kingdom will be victorious in this present spatial world that is characterized by “this present wicked age,” precisely because, in principle, Christ’s Kingdom is already victorious in this present spatial world.

What this means of course for many many Christians is the necessity to jettison the Humanist thinking that insists that we must have separation of Christianity and State. If we separate Christianity and State … if we separate the State, from the Kingship of Christ, the result will be that the State itself will take up the mantle of Christ’s Kingship and as we saw earlier we will then be ruled as by a Tyrant.

Conclusion,

Our Lord as King has crown rights over us by virtue of two facts.

1.) Creation — “All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made.” John 1:3.

^{Col. 1:16}For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.

2.) Redemption — You are not your own, you were bought with a price

I Cor. 6:20 — you are not your own For you have been bought with a price:
^{I Cor. 7:23}You were bought with a price; do not become bondservants of men.

Christ is our great King both by way of Creation and by way of Redemption. As such He, as King, as a double claim on us and this claim means we are the people who are eager to champion the great law of the King in our obedience and in our proclamation. We belong to the King and we move in terms of His legislative grace word.

You see of course that this is the problem of Arminianism and many other non-Reformed understandings of Christianity. Their denial of Christ’s Kingship is hard-baked into their theology. In Arminianism you have man trying to form joint regency with Christ as King. Man must have a King’s sovereign choice over his salvation. Man is King over his salvation. Well, if man is going to be sovereign King in the matter of his own regeneration then we should not be surprised when such non Reformed Christians reserve to themselves Kingly rights over every command of God’s law. When you assert your right to be King in order to choose God then there is no area that you will not claim.

Put succinctly and as pithily as I know how we must say that men who believe that they choose Christ as King very shortly come to believe that they can choose their own Kingly law.

Examining Dr. McDurmon and American Vision on Immigration

There simply is no biblical reason to refuse legitimate refugees. The Bible is clear that national borders should be open to all peaceful and law abiding individuals. Further, when we properly understand the meaning of the Bible’s teachings on immigrants, we will understand that to loathe refugees is to loathe ourselves and our own nation.

Dr. Joel McDurmon
American Vision

1.) First we would note that Dr. McDurmon confuses the issue somewhat by conflating the categories of “refugee” and “immigrants.” A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her home country, while an immigrant is someone who chooses to resettle to another country. There is a third category of “asylee” that is part of the conversation. These distinctions are important in this kind of conversation for without them it makes it even more difficult to make progress in the conversation.

2.) Dr. McDurmon makes this assertion in the face of what many have styled as “civilizational Jihad.” The recent deceased Muammar Gaddafi, noted,

“We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe—without swords, without guns, without conquest—will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.”

Consistent with Gaddafi’s observation, authors Sam Solomon and E. Al Maqdisi in their book, “Modern Day Trojan Horse; The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration,” call Muslim immigration to the West a “modern day Trojan Horse.” They go on to note that,“Mohammed himself proclaimed that migration is jihad,” and provides a flourish with. “from the Islamic jurisprudence view the immigration of the Muslims to the West is to be regarded as the most important step on the ladder for achieving the establishment of an Islamic state in the West. This is the primary objective of Islamic Mission in the West.”

Dutch political leader, Geert Wilders again echoes the above sentiments by noting that, “gradual and incremental transformation of our societies and legal systems, or what is termed ‘Isalmisation’ of our democratic societies by the vast growing numbers of Muslim immigrants who are importing Islam into our Western way of life.”

Ann Corcoran in her book, “Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America,” writes Hijara means migration and, according to Islam’s doctrine and its quietly acknowledged organizational strategies, the goal of migration, today is not peaceful assimilation to the political system and mores of the host country. Instead, the goal is jihad by non-violent means known as civilizational jihad or Islamization.

Would Dr. McDurmon have us believe that God would be pleased with embracing a immigration pattern, the soul intent of which is squashing what little remains of Biblical Christianity, by a Muslim immigration horde intended to be used as a hammer of submission to obliterate the Christian remnant in the West and all this to the end of the Humanist attempt to establish a New World Order?

3.) Next we would note that Dr. McDurmon is just wrong in this assertion above, as OT Scholar Dr. James Hoffmeier points out ,

“The very positive statements about the treatment of strangers in the Bible, some of which were already quoted, show compassion for the alien in ancient Israel. The defenders of illegal aliens point to these passages as the rationale for rewriting current laws. The problem is that they make a simplistic correlation between the ancient Israelite social law and the modern situation as if the Bible was addressing the same problem. Three important questions must be raised before one attempts to apply Israelite law to the modern situation: 1) Was there such a thing as territorial sovereignty in the second millennium B.C. when these laws originated; 2) Within that socio-legal setting, what was a “stranger” or “sojourner;” and 3) How does one obtain this status?”

The fact of the matter is that McDurmon has likewise rushed passed these distinctions just as he rushed by the distinctions between “refugee” and “immigrant.” McDurmon completely disregards the distinction between the differing words in the OT translated as differing times as “stranger,” “foreigner,” “alien,” and “sojourner.” This is a significant error and reveals a certain sloppiness on Dr. McDurmon’s part.

In point of fact, as Ehud Would has written, putting the strongest contradiction possible to Dr. McDurmon’s opening quote,

“In biblical law foreign races were permitted to enter the border only under patronage and direct legal oversight of a native. Whether ambassadors, contracted laborers, or slaves, they were forbade from owning land, ascending to any positions of political power, forbidden to marry members of the nation, and weren’t allowed to lend to natives at interest (though natives could do so toward them). Nor could aliens conscript natives to perpetual slavery, but natives could buy chattel slaves so long as they were of other peoples. And any of foreign breed who would not consent to these terms for entry of Israel’s border was regarded a hostile invader and subject to forcible expulsion as in the cases of the mass deportations under Ezra and Nehemiah.”

Dr. James Hoffmeier, unlike Dr. McDurmon in the opening quote, pays close attention to the different OT Hebrew words that are so significant in this discussion, and confirms much of Ehud Would’s observation immediately above,

“The delineation between the “alien” or “stranger” (ger) and the foreigner (nekhar or zar) in biblical law is stark indeed. The ger in Israelite society, for instance, could receive social benefits such as the right to glean in the fields (Leviticus 19:9-10; Deuteronomy 24:19-22) and they could receive resources from the tithes (Deuteronomy 26:12-13). In legal matters, “there shall be one statute for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you, a statute forever throughout your generations. You and the sojourner shall be alike before the LORD. One law and one rule shall be for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you” (Numbers 15:15-16). In the area of employment, the ger and citizen were to be paid alike (Deuteronomy 24:14-15). In all these cases, no such provision is extended to the nekhar or zar. In a sense, the gerwere not just aliens to whom social and legal protections were offered, but were also considered converts, and thus could participate in the religious life of the community, e.g. celebrate Passover (Exodus 12:13) and observe Yom Kippur, the day of atonement (Leviticus 16:29-30). They were, moreover, expected to keep dietary and holiness laws (Leviticus 17:8-9 & 10-12). It is well known that within Israelite society, money was not to be lent with interest, but one could loan at interest to a foreigner (nekhar). These passages from the Law make plain that aliens or strangers received all the benefits and protection of a citizen, whereas the foreigner (nekhar) did not. It is wrong, therefore, to confuse these two categories of foreigners and then to use passages regarding the ger as if they were relevant to illegal immigrants of today.”

4,) Another problem with Dr. McDurmon’s quote above is that Dr. McDurmon is calling for the State to have charity but as Dr. R. J. Rushdoony notes, “the state has no part in charity; the scripture never says that the state is to administer it. ” Rushdoony, in the same lecture, “Justice and World Law,” offers about this issue of immigration, “first of all they [illegal immigrants] have broken the law. And justice to everyone requires that the law be upheld. So if they are illegal aliens they should be deported. Now that’s justice because it’s comparable to breaking and entering into a man’s house.” From this quote we see that Dr. Rushdoony also disagrees with Dr. McDurmon’s opening quote.

In conclusion it is interesting that seemingly all of Institutional Christendom is insisting that civilizational Jihad must be embraced, and that the West must embrace its death by commandment of God. Whether it is the long acknowledged Left like the “Sojourners” organization or whether it is the Cultural Marxist Churches, or whether it is organizations like Lutheran World Relief or Catholic Relief Services or any number of other Denominational organizations what Christian laity are almost universally being told is that that if they don’t support the dissolution of themselves in their undoubted catholic Christian faith and as a people and they don’t love Jesus and are guilty of Racism. This call to accept civilizational jihad now even comes from those organizations that heretofore were considered “conservative” such as American Vision.

Christians need to be assured that they can oppose immigration and still be considered Christ honoring. Opposition to the kind of immigration that is being foisted upon the West today can happen in the context of obeying the 1st commandment, the 5th commandment, and the 8th commandment. Opposition to the kind of immigration that is being foisted upon us today can be embraced on the basis of the admonition of the necessity to provide for one’s own household. Opposition to the kind of immigration that is being foisted upon us today can be embraced on the basis of the same kind of love for our people that we find St. Paul expressing in Romans 9:3. In point of fact, I would insist that opposing the kind of immigration that is being foisted on the West today is the duty of every Christ loving Christian.

“

Kuyper’s Principled Pluralism … a Framework for Kind of Embracing Same Sex “Marriage”?

Principled pluralism holds that in God’s diverse and differentiated creation there are different structures that have their own particular authorities and powers. These different structures of authority operate within different spheres of social life. Each of these spheres—family, school, church, state, etc.—has its own God-given task, right, and authority. Each possesses authority within its own domain, and each possesses an appropriate authority in their interrelationships with other spheres. Committee to Provide Pastoral Guidance re Same-sex Marriage 13 The Kuyperian view upholds the legitimate authority of the state within a particular sphere of life. Alongside the sphere of the state, we recognize other social structures as having legitimate authority within their respective domains of social life. The state is one structure to which God has given this relative authority. This pluralism, a structural pluralism, is both pragmatic and fundamentally good—that is, both useful and the way things are supposed to be…

…Principled pluralism does not of itself provide a definitive answer to whether Christians should oppose or be supportive of civil same-sex marriage. Rather, it provides a framework within which a society decides which policies shape its interactions. While principled pluralism does not give us definite answers as to how we ought to act, it does shape the way we think through our current situation, where the church’s understanding of marriage is different from the state’s. No longer must this be necessarily threatening; nor must we have a singular response in all areas of life

2016 CRC Committee to Provide Pastoral Guidance re Same-sex Marriage (majority report)

Here in the Committee’s work we see Principled Pluralism invoked as some kind of limited cover for accepting sodomite marriage. Under the head of Principled Pluralism is gathered both structural pluralism and confessional pluralism.

1.) The idea of Principled Pluralism flounders on the shores of the word “Principled.” The word “Principled” is invoked in order to communicate that Principled Pluralism is distinct from cultural relativism or “anythinggoesism.” The problem here is that we have to ask ourselves is, “by what standard do we measure Principled.” This is absolutely key because the standard we use in order to determine what is and what is not “principled” is the end of Principled Pluralism because we are using only one standard to determine our pluralism. I mean, if we are going to have Principled Pluralism then we should have pluralist standards in order to determine what is and is not Principled. If Principled Pluralism can provide cover for sodomite marriage why can’t Principled Pluralism, using pluralist standards, provide justification for Sati or provide cover for Bestiality Marriage or provide cover for smoking peyote or provide cover for Snuff Pornography magazines or provide cover for any number of other deviant activities that could conceived?

2.) In the end Principled Pluralism when examined closely is a myth. The idea that many religions (Confessional Pluralism) and their competing gods will be allowed into the public square is seen to be a myth when we understand that some entity must exist in order to rule a competing pluralism to be in or out of bounds as Principled. Until recently Principled Pluralism ruled sodomite marriage as out of bounds. Now with Obergefell vs. Hodges Principled Pluralism allows for sodomite marriage. But notice there isn’t really anything Principled about this Pluralism. One of the Gods (the God of the Bible in this case) lost out against the God of Modernity and it was the real God in the system (the State via the Supreme Court) that determined how Principled “not-so-Pluralism” is defined. We see here then, that Confessional Pluralism is a no thing. There is no Confessional Pluralism when the State is God walking on the earth determining which of the lesser gods in the putative social order Confessional Pluralism is allowed to have it’s version of pluralism in the public square. The Committee appeals to a myth — to a non-sequitur — in invoking Principled Pluralism as a limited cover for sodomite marriage.

3.) Kuyperian Principled pluralism also insisted that each sphere is under Sovereign God and must move in terms of Gods’ authority and rule. This is something that the Committee left out about Kuyperian Principled Pluralism. In this version of Principled Pluralism the reality is that all of the Structures (Spheres) are accountable to God and are required to govern in their spheres consistent with God’s Word. Does anyone really want to argue that the State is ruling in keeping with God’s Word when it sanctioned same-sex “marriage”? We should remember Kuyper’s warning here regarding the State, “the government is always inclined with its mechanical authority to invade social life, to subject it and mechanically to arrange it.” No better example of this kind of social engineering can be found than in Obergefell vs. Hodges decision in favor of same sex “marriage,” and yet we are being led to believe that Kuyperian social theory gives limited cover for the State to sanction same sex “marriage.”

3.) We should also note here that Kuyper not only gave us a doctrine of Principled Pluralism he also emphasized the doctrine of the antithesis which emphasized that believing thought and unbelieving thought were in direct opposition. Kuyper noted here that,

We speak none too emphatically therefore when we speak of two kinds of people Both are human but one is inwardly different from the other and consequently feels a different content rising from his consciousness thus they face the cosmos from different points of view and are impelled by different impulses And the fact that there are two kinds of people occasions of necessity the fact of two kinds of human life and consciousness of life and of two kinds of science for which reason the idea of the unity of science taken in its absolute sense implies the denial of the fact of palingenesis and therefore from principle leads to the rejection of the Christian religion.

The point here in citing Kuyper on the Reformed Antithesis is that we cannot fairly take Kuyper on his Principled Pluralism as a limited cover for same sex “marriage” without also taking his understanding of the antithesis as an explanation as to why anybody would ever champion sodomite “marriage” as normal for a social order. The religion that is now animating the Civil Sphere is in antithesis to the Christian religion and all the Principled Pluralism in the world will not cover that up. If we, as Christians, are massaged into supporting same sex “marriage” in the civil realm while not supporting it in the religious realm we thus become like the man who serves two Masters. Our Lord Christ said that was not possible. The reason it is not possible is because of Kuyper’s antithesis.

Religious Marriage vs. Civil Realm Marriage?

Within Western culture, marriage has become a social institution in which civil government, the state, has an interest and plays a role. This has not always been the case. In its origins marriage was religious, and only in the past few centuries—as modern nation-states have developed—has the state become involved in issuing marriage licenses and recording marriages for the good ordering of society….

… there has emerged a level of disconnect between civil and religious marriage. They are no longer, nor have they been for some time, of one piece. The question is how significant the disconnect is, and whether the state has both the authority and the latitude to redefine civil marriage to include same-sex relationships.

2016 CRC Committee to Provide Pastoral Guidance re Same-sex Marriage (majority report)

This committee returns repeatedly to the distinction between “religious marriage” and “civil marriage.” This is an unfortunate distinction and serves to cloud the issues before us. The distinction has been drawn in the wrong place by the committee. The distinction is not between religious marriage and civil marriage but between two different kinds of religious marriages, one that occurs in a context informed by the Christian faith and one that occurs in a context that is informed by a non Christian faith. The fact that some of these marriages happen in the civil realm doesn’t negate that a religious marriage is occurring. It only means that the civil realm is now the container for a marriage that is consistent with a differing religion.

When marriages occur in the Christian context there is one parameters of law that is informing what constitutes a marriage. In the Christian religion the law informs us that in order for a marriage to occur you need one of each sex. In the pagan religion of the civil realm there is a different parameter of law that is informing what constitutes a marriage. In the pagan religion of modernity the law allows for a “marriage” to occur between matched sets (but stay tuned because yet more differing combinations are sure to be legalized in the near future.) Now, what is important to keep in mind here is that the law that legislates the allowed parameters in each context is inescapably religious and therefore each context likewise is inescapably religious — the so called “civil” as much as what is admitted as “religious.” In this case laws defining who and who cannot be eligible partner combinations for marriage. We have to keep before us in this conversation that the source of any law, regardless of what realm we are speaking of, when invoked as an authority to define parameters, at that very point takes on the color of religion. The Civil realm and civil marriages are religiously saturated. We have to keep before us that

1.) Governments make law — In this case the law that says two people of the same sex can get “married.”

2.) Law always has its source in some god or God concept — Government’s that make law are inescapably religious.

3.) Law is inescapably religious — A people’s or realm’s (civil) source of authority is it’s God and so it’s religion.

So, we say again, that the distinction we need to be discussing is not the distinction between civil realm marriages and religious marriages as if the civil realm marriages are not inherently religious. The distinction that needs to be made is between marriages shaped and informed by the Christian religion and marriages shaped and formed by some other religion.

Finally, we, as Christians, would say that as the State is God’s minister to do us good (Romans 13) that we answer the question of whether the state has both the authority and the latitude to redefine civil marriage to include same-sex relationships, with a decided negative. The State has no authority or latitude to rebel against God. The State has no authority or latitude to throw off the Christian religion in the family realm. The State has no authority or latitude to seek to arise to the most high to fulfill its aspiration of being god walking on the earth. As God’s spokesman the Church would do well to remind the State of Nebuchadnezzar’s folly and penalty when it seeks to legislate reality by its own fiat word. The State has no authority or latitude to deem itself anti-Christ.

And neither does the Church.