I was stunned to learn that some have dared to argue that Two
Kingdom theology led to the Poway Shooting.
In reality the exact opposite is true.
This is where Sacralism takes an absolutely sinister turn...
and this is true whether it's Right-Sacralism or so-called Left. All varieties
have confused Kingdom and culture, Church and state.
And as I've said Left-Sacralism isn't really 'Left'. These
are still patriotic even nationalist people, defenders of Wall Street and all
the rest. I don't see these people as socialists, rather as advocating a form
of state-sponsored patronage at best. It's not the same thing. They're not
calling for state seizure of resources and the nationalisation of corporations,
banks and industries, let alone a Marxist seizure of private property. They're
advocating (again at best) a Social Democratic model which is still well within
the confines of market capitalism. It may not be absolutised laissez faire but many will already know
that the markets actually don't like a highly idealistic Wild West approach to
economics. Regulation serves its purposes.
After the Poway attack some figures within the Social Justice
movement in a move very reminiscent of their Theonomic sacralist cousins
accused the shooter's OPC congregation of a Radical Two Kingdoms (R2K) view.
They had failed to teach the shooter about loving your neighbour and social
responsibility. Their inaction as congregational leaders and teachers led to
this happening. It would be laughable if it wasn't such a serious accusation.
One of these Social Justice warriors, a certain Bradley Mason
wrote some terribly misguided and confused comments associating the attack with
the views of the Two Kingdom Theology of Westminster California, a point I will
elaborate on below. I also located a statement by Theonomist Tim Bayly who
wondered if the attacker hadn't been influenced by the views of DG Hart and
David Van Drunen.
It's amazing. Mason and Bayly, a Social Justice advocate and
a Theonomist would be reckoned antagonists by many observers and yet when it
comes to the issue of Sacralism and Two Kingdoms, they speak the same language.
It's telling. Apart from a few stands made by Bayly with regard to Sodomy and
other related issues I have no time for him or his theology... particularly his
Evangelical-Pop style of Theonomy. We're reading very different Bibles to be
sure.
I tracked down Mason's website and grew even more frustrated.
On the one hand I am encouraged that there are Calvinistic people (I wouldn't
call him Reformed) who are challenging the myths of Christian America and
exposing some of the dark history no one wants to talk about. Yes, Machen,
Morton Smith and others were certainly racist. They represented the system, the
shameful status quo. I would laugh if anyone tried to say otherwise about
someone like RJ Rushdoony. His racism and Holocaust revisionism have been
general knowledge for many years.
And for a new generation of American urban dwellers, the old
narratives of Christo-Americanism aren't going to fly anymore. This is
encouraging and in some ways resonates with what I've been talking about for
many years.
However, given that these Evangelicals and New Calvinists
still retain the Sacralist/Dominionist understanding of the Kingdom and have
embraced the 'other gospel' language of these schools... the other gospel being
social transformation and a heretical syncretic and compromised definition of
the Kingdom... all their insights seem to be for naught. In the end, just as I
said in the other post, it comes down to a struggle for power. The Sacral
movements always devolve into politics and that's dangerous on multiple levels.
I'm glad that Mason has embraced predestinarian soteriology
and that he's unwilling to just sign on to the narratives of Confessional
Calvinism. That's great. But it turns out that he and others like him have
broken free of the whirlpool only to dive back in at a different spot. They've
learned nothing and are still caught on the same self-destructive carousel. It's
sad, even pitiable.
Inaction leads to violence? Failing to teach the Poway
shooter to love his neighbour led him to take up a gun and shoot people? I'm
not sure that follows. And yet it has a familiar ring to it. Sacralists love to
attack Two Kingdom theology as being acquiescent and therefore (they argue) it
deadens consciences and teaches a kind of dumb apathetic obedience. It's absurd
but the argument is often made.
Of course that still doesn't explain the shooter's views. His
actions hardly constitute passivity. Apathy hardly generates the kind of
fanatic zeal demonstrated by a mass shooter.
This is also but a variation of the dangerous lie that Two
Kingdom theology was responsible for the German people allowing the Nazis to
come to power. Those that argue in this fashion clearly demonstrate they have
very little understanding of Lutheran Two Kingdom theology. As I've argued
elsewhere Lutheran Two Kingdoms is really One Kingdom with two aspects. It's
sacralist and more or less Constantinian and yet avoids the explicit theocratic
models argued by some within the Reformed heritage.
In other words there's another element of confusion because
the Two Kingdom Theology of Lutheranism and the Reformed variety advocated by
and often associated with Westminster California is a far cry from the Two
Kingdom views associated with the Anabaptists... the view that often gets
pegged R2K or Radical Two Kingdom Theology. Though I'm not an Anabaptist by any
long shot, on this point we're in agreement. It is this variety of Two Kingdom
theology, now most often associated with the Anabaptists that is what I'm (more
or less) arguing for. Although it certainly antedates their 16th
century rise, this understanding of the Two Kingdoms posits the Kingdom of
Christ and the kingdom of the world, and they are ever in opposition. The
latter cannot be transformed but is under curse and is marked for destruction.
And anyone that has followed what I've written about will
understand that nonviolence and nonresistance is at the core of our Kingdom
calling. Anabaptist views of the Kingdom do not produce mass shooters. Anyone
who says otherwise is ignorant. And yet there is some of that nonsense floating
around and it's not just coming from Reformed circles. Confusion reigns in the
age of Internet.
If it's a 'radical' view, it's in that it rejects
Dominionism, something the Lutheran and Reformed varieties of Two Kingdom's
embrace... though in less vigorous and less than programmatic forms. The
Lutheran model has its own nuances to be sure while the Reformed version is
heavily influenced by figures like Abraham Kuyper. The Westminster California faculty
may not be Theonomists or Postmillennialists but they still believe in
Christians influencing and shaping culture. They're very clear on this and so
those who have made these accusations of cultural retreat or apathy are
ignorant or lying. They're not 'radical' and while figures from within these
circles are certainly Right-wing, their understanding of Two Kingdoms if
anything downplays the political
aspects and divorces the politics from the theology.
As a Two Kingdom advocate who would certainly get pegged with
the 'radical' or Anabaptist label I can safely tell you that from my
perspective the Two Kingdom Theology of both Lutheranism and Westminster
California are repugnant to me. They're crypto-Sacral. I've written many pieces
criticising the views of LPR's Issues Etc. and Westminster figures like Scott
Clark. The latter is cut from the same Right-wing cloth as many other
Evangelicals and Dominionists. The Two Kingdom Theology I represent completely
rejects his views as Right-wing and vile. And so on all fronts people like Bayly
and Mason get it wrong. They misidentify the categories of Two Kingdom thought
and certainly misunderstand their political thought and how it is applied.
In part 2 of my recent piece on The Social Justice
Controversy I offered some thoughts on the Poway shooter and his context within
the OPC. I haven't been in Poway since the 1980s and I am unfamiliar with his specific
congregation and I certainly have no familiarity with the conversations that
take place in the lobby and parking lot. But what I did relate was that
Confessional and Evangelical churches in general are affected by an anger and a
growing tone of conversation that focuses on revenge, guns and resistance. The
context and assumptions that undergird these conversations is sacral. And
apparently this Center-Right or Pseudo-Left Social Justice movement is turning
to the same kind of poisonous rhetoric. I genuinely fear where this is all
headed.
But to blame the violence of the Poway Shooter on a theology
which at least in part (as in the case of Westminster and Lutheran 2K) or
completely (as in the case of so-called R2K) rejects politics is truly asinine.
The men who asserted such are not people to be taken seriously. They've
misunderstood Two Kingdom Theology on all fronts. They pin one variety on a
group to which it does not belong and the group they blame, actually holds views
not all that distant from their own.
To add a layer of confusion, some have tried (and failed) to
identify this nuance by calling Lutheran Two Kingdoms theology as 2K proper
while the Westminster variety was identified as R2K or radical. But this too is
a false distinction. If there is a 'radical' version, whatever that's supposed
to mean in this case, it's the Anabaptist view which is committed to
nonviolence and nonresistance. Like any Right-wing Christian, Scott Clark
celebrates the troops and buys into all the standard lies and narratives about
American history and its wars. But again, he's not pushing for a 'formal' state
enforced Christianity. His views are not 'radical' nor do they differ (in
essence) from the Confessional Lutheran view.
But as I've pointed out elsewhere this specious argument is
also rooted in confusion and deceit because when they want to attack Two Kingdoms
doctrine in general the apologists for Sacralism cite the Lutherans and their
capitulation to the Nazis. But when they want to attack Westminster or the
Anabaptists they make a distinction and point out that the Lutherans aren't R2K
or radical. It's a disingenuous, opportunistic, manipulative and self-serving
position.
I truly pity their followers. They are like sheep without a
shepherd. They're being manipulated by agents of an agenda, not men with
discernment or even a genuine zeal for truth-telling. These teachings bear
fruit and have consequences and the story is far from over.
The greatest irony is that the sacral understanding politicises
the Kingdom and theologises the culture and civilisation. This is what both
Mason and Bayly stand for. Bayly like most Theonomists seems to have never
really thought through the implications of his own system. I've heard a
multitude of Theonomic sermons calling on the state to enforce religion and
reconstitute blasphemy laws, suppress heresy and the like. Speaking out of both
sides of their mouth they often still attempt to retain the language of
liberty, rights, constitutionalism and the Enlightenment values and ideals
associated with America. Some of them try to blend the concepts of Classical
Liberalism with their theology but the more thoughtful and honest members of
that school realise they don't go together and are in fact incompatible. As
I've pointed out elsewhere, on this point they're right. Classical Liberalism
is incompatible with New Testament Christianity but given that we're not to
establish power or erect a sacral state, the forms of Classical Liberalism are
sufficient and are generally supportive of the social plurality New Testament
Christianity considers ideal. It's not a bad system to live under and certainly
preferable to a sacral state. Even living under a Turk was better than living
under a Habsburg. The danger of living under such a Classical Liberal system is
to confuse it and its seemingly Christian friendly ideals with Biblical Christianity,
the very trap that Evangelicalism and even much of Confessional Protestantism
have fallen into.
Theonomists have largely failed to grasp that under their
system not only do we find the theology for Crusade but for an Inquisition,
thought-crime and a police state. Such views are antithetical to Liberalism and
certainly the views, ideals and visions of the Enlightenment soaked American
Founding Fathers. The Theonomic position is inherently violent as their seizure
of power would immediately and necessarily be followed by a purge, a bloodbath.
Twenty years ago this used to be talked about more openly. Since the movement
reinvented itself in the wake of Rushdoony's 2001 death, this kind of candid
and frank (if brutal) conversation has been set aside, at least in their public
discourse.
The truth of the matter is that the shooter was motivated by
a variety of Sacralism, the same overarching category of thought that motivates
Mason but certainly is deeply entrenched in the thought of someone like Bayly.
I pity the latter because he's apparently too clueless to understand this and
what's even more disheartening is that he has a large following... again sheep
with no shepherd or more accurately sheep being led by wolves. The fact that the
racist theology of Kinism is a movement that has arisen out of Theonomy
shouldn't surprise us. It's a natural outgrowth but many Theonomists (like
Bayly) do not make the connections. While I would not accuse the garden variety
Theonomist of being overtly racist on the order of Kinism I will say their
movement and ideology fosters and even facilitates such views. Their theology
of the state, civilisation and history is riddled with deeply embedded racist
assumptions and yet like many social conservatives they are blind to this
reality or practice a form of self-deception. The Kinist heretics themselves
point out the inconsistency and I will freely concede they have a valid
argument. The difference is, they celebrate this fact. They glory in what ought
to be their shame.
That's harsh language to be sure but as I said
earlier...we're reading different Bibles. Sacralism, the great Kingdom heresy
is undoubtedly one of the darkest and most destructive cancers to ever afflict
the Christian Church. It is (I would argue) the Great Apostasy predicted by
Scripture. Ultimately in its extreme forms it is a denial of Christ, His Person
and Work and it represents a form of spiritual treason, an attempt to erect a
counterfeit Zion. As Meredith Kline said, their ideal is actually the
Beast-Antichrist paradigm we're warned against in Scripture. It is (I would
argue) a Protestant variety of Constantinianism, a modern version of Medieval pseudo-theocracy.
There are many variations, all grievous to be sure but some more so than
others. Theonomy represents one of the most extreme and contemptible forms.
I've known many Theonomists and I have wrestled with the issue since my early
days as a Christian. I'm afraid in all sincerity I'm left wondering about a
good many of them, if they've even grasped some of the basic messages of
Scripture. Their gospel is one of power, brutal, bestial, Judaizing and a far
cry from the both the spirit and core doctrines of the New Testament. Ethically
it is bankrupt and at times overtly evil. It's ironic because it is the school
so obsessed with ethics and judicial application of Torah and yet these folks
have abandoned, nay jettisoned the core ethical principles and judicial
teachings of Christ and the Apostles. The Sermon on the Mount is offensive to
them.... as indeed the Gospel of the Kingdom is always offensive to the Christ-hating
world. The Theonomists (and not a few of their Dominionist cousins) possess a
theology that neither reflects the Old Testament nor the New... rather it
represents a bastardised attempt at Christianising pagan sacral politics... raw
power and the veneration of it. As I've often described it, it's the Tower of
Babel re-born with cheap golden cross attached to the top of it.
When I saw Bayly's accusation, I just shook my head. A blind
guide if ever there was one.
The Two Kingdom views of Confessional Lutheranism and
Westminster California are also to be condemned but they at least retain a
sense of division between Kingdom labours and political hopes.
As far as the Dallas Signers, they are neither Theonomists
nor advocates of Two Kingdom Theology. They are however Dominionists but primarily
I see them as being motivated by simple Right-wing concerns and a zeal to
retain the societal status quo.