Feb 7
To Heidelblog and Carl Trueman regarding his remarks during a Heidelblog podcast which said that the Church as an institution is not to call on society to change.
And so the Church as an institution is suppose to reprimand society for its sexual immorality and acceptance of abortion, but it is suppose to keep silent when the nation wages immoral wars, has a lifestyle that continually pollutes the world and contributes to increasing climate change, embraces an economy that continues to increase the wealth disparity between the classes and races, and continues in its systemic racism? Of course, I left out a few things.
If the Church is to call on the sinners to repent as part of preaching the Gospel, and people both commit personal sins and participate in corporate sins of the state and society, then the Church as an institution is to call on the state, society, and the people that are apart of the state and society to repent of committing corporate sins, not just individual sins. Otherwise, the Church as an institution might find itself repeating the same sins that it has been committing in the past few centuries: siding with wealth and power.
I say all of that as one who believes that neither Transformationalism nor 2KT is either correct in everything or is wrong in everything.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 8
To Heidelblog and Erick-Woods Erickson and his article that criticizes the movement and the message of the 'Jesus gets us' commercials on tv.
Erick-Woods Erickson's full article can be found at:
https://ewerickson.substack.com/p/a-waste-of-money
Erick-Woods Erickson could have wasted lest time and words by saying the following: When cultural relevance takes precedence over God's Revelation of Himself, then we are taught that we are the ones who seek to change Christ rather than accepting the fact that it is Christ who changes those who believe. The difference between the two approaches could not be more binary. In the former, we are taught that we are to make Christ in our image. In the latter, Christ starts to conform those who believe into His image.
Other than that, Erickson simply exhibits the same kind of behavior of those he is criticizing by showing partiality to political conservatism.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Kay Clarity and the reposting of her article that calls conservatives to arms to battle "terrorists" from the 'progressive left' who are censoring conservatives like herself. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
Outside of recognizing that the above article was just an emotional tirade, this article is a call to arms without establishing the premise for such a call. The premise is claimed, but never defined and documented. Let alone the black-white world where "terrorists" from the 'progressive, radical left' are seeking to silence conservatives. Yes, there are some instances of where some conservatives have been shouted down or censored. But there is no documentation provided which supports that such silencing is widespread. On the other hand, we should note the actions taken by conservative state governments, such as those in Florida, Texas, and Missouri, that are seeking to censor and silence the teaching of Critical Race Theory or any other view of the history of racism in America that would infringe on one becoming an enthusiastically loyal American patriot.
The above is not just an emotional tirade, it is an authoritarian appeal. Unfortunately authoritarianism has infected not just some conservatives, but some liberals and some leftists as well. And it is authoritarianism that moves people to try to silence those whose views which it objects to. That applies regardless of the ideology of those seek to silent others. And so it applies to some who are conservatives, some who are liberals, and some who are leftists.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Simon Joost on his blog article on applying 2K Theology (2KT) to how the Church should relate to the State in South Africa during the Post-Apartheid era. Joost seems to believe that, because of 2KT, there should be an apartheid between Church and State. But that apartheid approach is balanced by the promotion of Natural Law. Boost does not talk much about the promotion of Natural Law in this article. Joost's article appeared in the Heidelblog.
When we put our pet theologies and confessional standards on too high a pedestal, they become a canon for the canon of the Scriptures. We should never ignore those theologies and confessional standards because they consist of writings from Christian theologians and teachers of the past. We just can't put their content on too high a pedestal or we become traditionalists. The problem with traditionalism is that it serves as the other side of the coin of narcissism. And in being the other side of the coin of narcissism it shares some of narcissism's weaknesses.
And so we come to Reformed 2KT and its interaction with the government. We should note that while the government deals with just the the relationships between people (the horizontal), the Church also deals with the relationships between people and God (the vertical). And 2KT is correct in producing a partial apartheid between the Church and State though that apartheid can't be so consistent and profound that the Church is not able to speak prophetically to the State. We should note that 2KT's major weakness is that it infringes either significantly or completely allowing and enabling the. Church to speak prophetically the state.
One factor should be considered here. When we identify as being a Christian, everything that we do and say and everything that we refrain from doing and saying can become identified with the Gospel and thus our stumbling bring can bring discredit to the Gospel. And that puts all of us Christians in the same sinking boat because as James says: ' We all stumble in many ways..' That admission from James implies that we should be gentle when feeling compelled to correct other Christians whom we perceive as hurting the reputation of the Gospel.
Certainly the Church as an institution should not try to run the state and society, which when it has happened has greatly harmed the reputation of the Gospel. Here, we should be cautious about promoting the idea that the State must enforce what the Church sees as natural law. The unnecessary promotion of natural law can be a backdoor approach to the Church trying to run the State. On the other hand, when the Church as an institution is reluctant to speak and act out against social injustices, it can, and has, brought just as much harm to the reputation of the Gospel as when the Church has tried to run or become the State.
Today, it seems that 2KT promoters use Natural Law to defend their insistence that the State must codify certain Biblical standards for sexual behavior while use 2KT to defend their silence on social injustices allowed, or even promoted, by the State. Such falls in line with the past few centuries of Church History where the Church has sorely pressed people regarding their individual behaviors while siding with wealth and power via silent complicity when it comes to not speaking prophetically to the State and society in the face of social injustices.
We should also note one more point. Christians are called to suffer and even die without resisting their persutors for the sake of the Gospel. But are Christians called on to do the same when facing social injustices with unbelievers? That question was never directly addressed in the New Testament.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 12
To Heidelblog and Samuel G. Parkinson for the part of Parkinson's article quoted by the Heidelblog post. Parkinson's article was about practicing the Regulative Principle and how including the reciting of creeds like the Nicene Creed should be included as part of the Regulative Principle.
Samuel G. Parkinson's full article can be found at:
https://credomag.com/2023/01/the-regulative-principle-and-the-corporate-recitation-of-creeds/
From Parkinson's article, Parkinson seems like a traditionalist, which is the other side of the coin of being a narcissist. I say that not as an insult, though it sounds like one, but in order to make a point. The point being that perhaps in deciding on following the Regulative Principle that he is elevating a certain set of time periods from the past above the present time so that if there could be an exchange of ideas between the two time periods, his set of time periods would have everything to teach and nothing to learn from the present time period. That is the problem with traditionalism. Narcissism, of course, reverses that teaching and learning direction.
Regarding the Regulative Principle, we don't see that principle stated, practiced, or promoted in the New Testament. There is no clear communication describing how worship must be to the exclusion of other practices. We might even add that the Regulative Principle was not followed by Jesus when He lived on earth. We can also add that there is no New Testament directive telling us to recite creeds during worship. But here we should also caution that whatever ways we choose to worship God, the attitude of worshiping God must be central to the ways we worship.
We should that in Acts 15, the Apostles decided to reduce the requirements for Gentile believers to be counted as believers. Holding to the Regulative Principle for worship and the reciting of creeds during worship shows an attitude of adding to requirements for Gentile believers. It's not that we should refuse to recite creeds like the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, but it should be optional. Also, we should call into question the insistence on the holding to the Regulative Principle.
Finally, in describing the basis for the Regulative Principle for worship, there seems to be too much focus on the particulars so that follow the letter of the law while missing the spirit of the law. What is singing, preaching/teaching, and read but ways of communicate God's Word to His people. So what is most important here, that we sing, preach/teach, and read or that we communicate God's Word?
No comments:
Post a Comment