A Kingdom discussion at GreenBaggins

Here's a rather extensive record of a good series of exchanges over at Green Baggins. No one changed anyone's mind, but it's yet another good example of the issues at stake and how someone like me pursues them vs. those who hold to what we would call the Christian Right. These interactions/comment threads seem to generate interest and some of you seem to find them helpful. This one has a different tone than the exchange last night on this site.

The conversation was good, a little depressing from my standpoint....but I'm pleased it stayed pretty civil. I'm afraid in the end my theology was pegged as Anabaptist....which if you've read anything here, you'll know that while I have some sympathy with them, there's much of their theology that I don't share. I'm not a Baptist to start with.

The Anabaptists picked up a vital part of the proto-Protestant mantle, but in reaction to the new Constantinianism birthed by the Protestant Reformation, they went too far in some of their theological constructs. Verduin talks about how some of this played out in The Reformers And Their Stepchildren. The whole baptism issue for the Anabaptists was really more about baptism being tied in with state citizenship vs. a theology that allowed children to be part of the Church. The latter they were not totally opposed to from the onset. But over time they moved toward a more hard line Credo-Baptist position....believer's baptism only. Children were in no way part of the visible manifestation of the Body.---That's my interpretation of how things developed. Modern day Anabaptists may differ. Verduin himself seemed to agree with what I'm saying. He seemed to lament the rift that took place in Zurich. The issue wasn't really about Baptism....it was Zwingli's refusal to set aside the Sacralist-Constantinian legacy of the Middle Ages.
The original post can be found here.

One of the commentors posted a critique of me and my website. It's down at the bottom. I'll post that separately at a later time. For those of you who care to wade through it all...enjoy and I hope you'll find some benefit in this conversation.

The international audience, cultural influences, and a note regarding the validity and trustworthiness of the Scripture.

So far I'm amazed at the volume of traffic reaching this website. In just a couple of months, this site has gone from just a few visits a day up to over a hundred on some. I wondered if anyone would read it all. Writing on these subjects has helped me by finally after many years putting some of these things down on paper (so to speak). I'm so glad to find out I'm not alone. There are other people committed to the Christ of Scripture who also have grave concerns regarding what has happened to the Church in history and how traditions and systems have been elevated above the Divine Word.




There are people reading articles from literally all over the world. Africa is the only continent that has not brought any readers yet. I hope that will change.



For years I have been concerned about a specifically American or even Western version of the gospel and Christianity going out all over the world. As I've written, it seems so often when I read books or articles, listen or watch reports, the Christianity I hear about in other parts of the world has been specifically tied in with western cultural values. Though somewhat unavoidable, I hope for the churches outside the West to escape some of the problems that plague us, while they still have a chance. I'm very disappointed when I see people from other countries echoing Americanism. I expressed this in my post 'Propaganda Indeed,' where we find a man from Bulgaria writing on American Vision and promoting a distinctly and completely American theological agenda. Bizarre. Why would they fall for it? It's like all the Mormons in Europe. How could people fall for something so obviously American, so clearly provincial in nature? As we say in America, out of the frying pan and into the fire!



A few additional examples....

Beslan, The Chechens, and The Legacy of Sacralist Russia part 2

Someone responded to my comments regarding the Beslan tragedy. It was over at a website called Defending/Contending. I didn't expect a response because it would seem all I succeeded in doing at the site was angering everyone. There's a thread called...It's about the beat.... some of you might be interested in it. It was largely a debate between a Pietistic view of Culture vs. my position in arguing Culture is Common. Some of the same issues appear here as a Sacralized view of culture will not allow for us to think outside a certain box that's often provided for us. I argue Pietism is one variety of a Sacralist view of culture and it interprets Christianity through that specific cultural lens. My post called The Good Old Days deals with that a bit.

I had intended to leave off interacting with this site. They pretty much seem to despise me. I'm sure to them I'm a worldly, leftist, apostate or something.

There are actually a lot of good things at the site. That said, it's often (to borrow Moo's phrase), like a symphony out of tune. They really like Spurgeon and Pink. Me too, but as I tried to point out, Pink and Spurgeon didn't exactly teach the view of culture and pietism they are espousing.

One type of Sacralism in viewing culture as holy focuses on power and conquest.

The other variety in viewing culture as holy focuses on separation-ism and critique.

I argue both tactics are wrong because they identify culture in the wrong manner. Am I saying we don't separate? Oh, we have to, especially when we live in a Sacralist culture. We may even be driven from the churches which espouse it. We have to be very self-conscious and very careful. It's actually easier for us to be self-conscious when we live in a secular state, which is what we as Christians should wish for. Shocking I know. Daryl Hart has recently written on this. Of course no state or society is static. In the end they will all move one way or the other.

Pietism seeks to escape worldly influence and thought by creating a Christian sub-culture. But the sub-culture is still defined by the larger culture and they cannot help but conflate or blend the two ideas. Thus often Pietistic Separatists are often just as pro-America and pro-Imperial as the Transformationalist variety.

I argue we need to be in the world, but not of it. Our Separatism is not about clothes or music per se. We need to do those things as Christians too. But the Kingdom is not about clothes or music....meat or drink....it's about righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.

So I'm calling for what would seem to a Transformationalist....as separatism.

What seems to a Pietist....as worldy.

This view doesn't make sense to either of them, because I'm refusing to accept their categories of thought.

Anyway, here is the exchange. A man named "Pilgrim" responded to my post from early July.

Answering a few questions......

This is a response to a comment left earlier today. I ended up running a bit long, so I decided to just post it as an article. Others may find it helpful as well.

More from IronInk.....part 3

Mr. IronInk has responded once more. He is so kind to do so.

He refuses to answer the basic questions I have asked. Until he does so....take note, he has lost the argument.

Here's his latest post. He has shown his true colours. He won't post my comments and is obviously not interested in interacting, which is fine. I wrote a short note in reply.

He may go away or he may declare war. Either way, his arguments and lack thereof only demonstrate the failure of the system know as Theonomic Reconstructionism.

I willingly post anything, any of them write against me, so convinced am I their system is bankrupt and anti-christian.

Here's IronInk.....

More letters to Theonomists part 2, concluding post

C---,

Missouri Synod????

Right— we’re both employing many un-argued assumptions. It’s a web-thread. To fully argue many of these points would require hundreds of pages. That’s not the point of this exercise, but you already know that don’t you?

As far as assumptions underlying the structure of our arguments…..well, I find the Constantinian position to rest on foundations which are proven invalid by the NT. We can talk more about that…we have been to some extent. We could take a vote. I think everyone here would say you’re the one who refuses to engage that point. For this discussion to amount to anything, we have to get back to hermeneutics. I’m arguing you’re reading the Bible inverted. You’re looking through the wrong end of the binoculars……that’s why the NT Kingdom is so far away. Show me an instance where an Apostle treated a Psalm or a prophetic passage the way you are?

More letters to Theonomists part 1

More letters to Theonomists....

*Addendum---to be fair, these two men have answered, and yet it would seem the exchange is done at this point. Like IronInk.....they won't answer the questions.

Here are a couple more letters I've posted to Theonomists. They won't even answer, they just run. Don't accept their paradigm, argue from the Biblical categories not their philosophical-based construct and their left speechless. They don't have an answer, and they know it.

These people are in the end, bullies. They function not like people of the Kingdom, but as political hacks. Once exposed to the light, they scurry. Their unbiblical system is completely bankrupt. They have been answered and refuted time and time again. But what they do? They just keep publishing books and articles, patting themselves on the back and ignore our arguments. So just like in politics unless we employ their tactics and tools, the truth is kept from the field.

We will not employ their carnal weapons of warfare, but we will not be silent and allow them to keep deceiving people. Challenge them, I say.

I think those in the Reformed world who know how dangerous and destructive Monistic Sacralism is, really made a mistake in not speaking in stronger terms. The impression I always had say, fifteen years ago was that, well, they're wrong, but still orthodox and we should all get along.

While some may get upset over the sacramental efficacy and conditional covenantalism taught here....I would ask why has the doctrine of the Kingdom become so unimportant that any view seems to be tolerable?

IronInk Exchange Part 2

I am so pleased. IronInk did respond and this is an excellent exercise for those who wish to see the issues and arguments at work. Here's the link to his post regarding my last letter.

A Conversation with a Theonomy(Biblical Christianity)Hater.


Enjoy. And here's my response to his post. I hope he posts it. He didn't with my last, but we'll see. Maybe there will even be a part #3.

An exchange on IronInk.

It started over immigration, but its really about much bigger issues. Here's a link to the post on their site.....Random Thoughts on Illegal Immigration.

I wrote a response below.....I got a response....and I wrote again. Here's the exchange, which is also on the IronInk site. I hope I can post a part#2 of this discussion.........

Even if you don't agree, you can learn from the different ways in which we're arguing and how we get to where we are at.......

Discussions with a Van Tillian regarding Worldview

Here I try and briefly explain the problem of Van Tillian informed Worldview teaching and how it leads to the autonomous thought they so want to avoid.....

It ended up being a good exchange. You can follow the whole thread here.

I learned a few things and am pondering what was said. I still hold to what I've written, but will admit it's complicated with Van Til. He said a lot of things and they don't always seem to fit together. Whether he truly laid the foundation for what has happened, or whether the Dominionists have hijacked him......the jury is still out I guess.

Here's part of the comment thread.....

Propaganda Indeed!

American Vision is sort of the poster child for everything this project is against. It represents not just Constantinianism but a peculiar and vehement American variety of it. This is exactly what I'm talking about elsewhere in reference to applying the pseudo-Christian worldview to history and current events. This is the telos.

This morning I encountered a rather outrageous post from one of their contributors. I am saddened to see people outside of the United States falling for what is so obviously a culta americana as opposed to Biblical Christianity.

I tried to post this comment, but their website only allows for short posts....we've talked about this before as well. I've tried to email this letter to the author. We'll see what happens? Maybe they'll all come and scream at me, but I keep finding they choose to just ignore their critics or beat up on straw men of their own choosing.

Here's the link to the post: When Your Own Propaganda Turns Against You

And here's my letter to the author:

An exchange on Al-Jazeera English

Here's a comment from someone on the Al Jazeera English Asia Blog........with my reply.

Ms W:

So, let’s see. . . The U. S. and other western nations are spending trillions to keep Afghans and other Muslims from slaughtering each other, to get them into the 21st century, to give them development and a decent life, but—they are seen as “occupiers” and “exploiters”?

What SPECIFICALLY is the U. S. and its allies getting out of this miserable folly? It is costing blood and treasure that the west does not have!

Odd too that no-one ever dumps on China for exploiting the riches of Africa, Iraq, Afghanistan and countless other nations.

Many say the west should leave and close the door behind them. Let these people duke it out until there is only one man left standing. Perhaps then there will be peace, but I sincerely doubt it since this appears to be the regional motto:

"Me against my brother, my brother and I against our father, our father and us against our tribe, our tribe against the world".


Protoprotestant:

I think that might be a little naive. Despite what is presented in the media, U.S. motivations are hardly altruistic. It's a big chess game and sadly rather than having 8 pawns on the board....the teams have millions of people. It's not about development and nation building, that's part of the strategy to gain stability.....stability so the U.S. can have bases and bring in the business and grow the American Empire, a complex of corporations, political proxies and military presence. Everyone is drooling now over the new mineral assessment of Afghanistan. It could be a blessing for the country, but in the end will probably be their biggest curse.

Interacting with Theonomists....Don't let them dictate the terms.

Here's a little exchange I had at the GreenBaggins site with a Theonomist. You may find this of interest: It began with my response to a blog post concerning the First Amendment and a few other issues.... 

Two Kingdoms- Neither Left nor Right on the political spectrum

I was posting a comment on a great website which is actually interested in discussion. It's called The Confessional Outhouse. The author/poster was writing about how Two-kingdom theology is accused of being leftist because they so heavily critique the Christian Right. He wrote a good piece talking about the same Constantinian tendencies on the left. I think he was right in what he said...I just wanted to comment, and interact a little with it.

Here's the blog posting....

www.confessionalouthouse.wordpress.com/2010/06/21/of-geese-and-ganders/#more-2648

Here's my response....