Give him credit: culture warrior Darrel Todd Maurina sure knows which buttons to push. Now he’s made three listserves (OPC, URC, and the Warfield List) blow up over 2k and civil unions. Not content to merely push the “gay” button, he’s just started pushing all of them:
Once we’ve done that, why not allow the contract to be between more than two people? Why not allow the contract to be between fathers and daughters, or mothers and sons, or brothers and sisters? Once abortion has been legalized to “take care of” problems caused by birth defects due to close relatives having children, is there any good secular reason why incest should be prohibited? How about polygamous marriages? And if we’re going to allow 16- and 17-year-old minors to contract marriages with parental consent, which is allowed for good reasons in many states, why not allow lower ages for a marriage contract with parental consent? (OPC list, August 16)
For those of you with culture war scorecards, you can check off abortion, incest, polygamy, and marriage for young teens. I don’t think bestiality has been mentioned yet.
Before we get to the most current topic on the lists, it might be useful to look at some of Mr. Maurina’s views. Taking a peek into the mind of God, Maurina has a theory on why gay unions are now an issue: “The divorce rates among evangelicals are a scandal and the gay marriage battles could very well be a punishment by God of the American church for our weakness on the issue of heterosexual marriage.” Then he describes his basic approach:
I believe all legislation reflects someone’s view of morality, that there is no neutrality in the civil realm, and that it is not Reformed for Christians to leave their faith outside when they enter the statehouse door or the voting booth. We’re called to live 24-7 for Christ, not restrict our faith to what we do in church.
His priority is not theology but culture:
Many conservatives see that as a sign of weakness or willingness to compromise, and it is a major red flag given current cultural issues. I realize you may not want to fight the culture wars, but the culture wars have now come to you in the form of this “homosexual marriage” and “homosexual civil union” debate.
As for the listserves, Maurina’s initial volley was his link to a Misty Irons speech. That conversation hadn’t even ended when he also decided to take on Michael Horton. Maurina found a White Horse Inn article in which he took the most offense from “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.” He went on to urge readers to complain to Robert Godfrey at Westminster Theological Seminary in Escondido.
Horton eventually responded to Mr. Maurina on the URC list:
Thanks for your note—and for your remarks defending my “overall” orthodoxy.
I don’t regret anything I said, interpreted in the context in which I said it. The Free Republic [hyperlink added] simply misinterpreted my point and extrapolated, without the slightest foundation, that I would be willing to officiate at a same-sex union. How ridiculous! When I clearly and repeatedly argued against homosexual practice of any kind, much less a union!
Being open to affirming a civil arrangement that allows partners inheritance, insurance, and other economic benefits, is NOT being open to same-sex relationships!!! My point was to say that the gay lobby is not really interested in equal rights, but in equal affirmation of gay and heterosexual marriage. So Christians should NOT treat the marriage debate as if it were equivalent to civil rights. Some Christians do argue that we should allow a pagan state to honor “life commitments” regardless of marriage, but to argue that this should be called MARRIAGE is ultimately not a question of civil rights but of the meaning of marriage itself.
I cannot help the fact that some have apparently overlooked the distinction I’ve made—and the fact that it’s part of an argument AGAINST gay marriage. I can only hope that people would not spread false impressions based on where they think it will lead rather than what I actually argued.
Many more pixels have been spilled on the lists, but much study of the listserves is weariness to the flesh. Suffice it to say there is a lot of noise, and noise is the confusing part of looking at the issue.
The simpler parts of the issue at hand are biblical marriage and civil law. Under the first, marriage is defined in the scriptures. It involves a man and a woman who are bound by all the scriptures say about marriage.
The second part is civil law. Under that law the magistrate decides what laws should attach to marriage. Some of those laws include inheritance, tax status, legal authority and responsibility for children born of the marriage, etc. Reasonable people can disagree on what laws should attach to marriages. Reasonable people can also disagree on whether those laws should only attach to marriages in the biblical sense or if they should be available to other people.
The third part is the noise. Noise is what happens when buttons are pushed. Noise includes people who talk as if being open to gays benefitting from certain civil laws is the same as being open to marrying gays in the church. Noise creates confusion and contention, obscuring the first two parts.
So the conversation is one that we need to have, but let’s keep the noise down.
Presbyterian Blues 
I’d be careful calling evil good and good evil. Criticism of the conservative has become a sport around Reformed circles, hasn’t it? What are you afraid of, being shamed because of your inaction or silence in the face of evil?
Scott, I’m surprised you came in the door shooting. So far it looks like you have come to bring noise but maybe we can make some progress. First, what if I actually am conservative? Second, what all do you know about my action or inaction in the civil realm? Then, for your serious charge of calling evil good and good evil, show either.
Sorry for my assumptions. Well, are you conservative?
Yes, but not worldview warrior conservative. I don’t fancy that I have a scriptural footnotes for my political inclinations. I don’t think political conservativism is identical to Christianity, or that we may subtly make it mandatory in the churches.
I don’t try to get Michael Horton fired because he takes a civil position he is at liberty to take. And I think reasonable discourse is preferable to button pushing. So there’s a few qualifiers. Does that make sense?
So it is OK to be involved in politics as long as one is meek about it?
Far be it from me to dictate your temperament. Just don’t say “Thus sayeth the Lord” before your political pronouncements.
Have you heard of Politics According to the Bible by Wayne Grudem? He argus the case for Biblical political conservatism. It is not that far fetched.
I haven’t particularly read that but, in general, been there done that. As far as the Christian right goes, I don’t even think “conservative” is an apt term. They have a few social issues they unite over, and cop an attitude about the courts. Then they act like a special interest group and use the same tactics as the left. See Hart’s book From Sarah Palin to Billy Graham…
You’re stereotyping big-time now. I know Dr Hart’s work very well, have that book but haven’t gotten through it yet. Hart himself seems very hostile to conservative Christians. No group gets it right all of the time, so I think it’s a big mistake to pigeonhole them. 2K is great in theory but does little to animate Christians and has more in common with pietism and quietism. When you say “been there done that” it sounds like you have become jaded. While the Christian Right has done some embarrassing things, a lot of it is due to a corrupt media that caricatures conservatives. In other words, think about “how did I get that idea?” when you consider these things of culture. I’ve found that it is in vogue to criticize the right. Swinging too far is reflexive for us when we have ben conditioned to think a certain way over time. Over-correction is a danger to us in this area, and 2K is a product from a lot of negative media press, and 30-somethings tired of their father’s politics. Anyway my two cents….
It’s from close observation, Scott. I’ve read the blogs, listened to their radio and gone to the rallies. The first caucus in the nation is in Iowa, so I get it all in my front yard. Go back to my posts about the Republican candidates.
Do you always assume that if someone doesn’t agree with you then they have inferior information or emotional issues? Also, if you take me for being an “in vogue” kind of guy, that’s your 4th strike.
William Buckely was conservative; the Christian conservatives are just another special interest group.
Anyway, I’ll check back on Monday to see if you still want to show me how I’ve called evil good and good evil.
Scott–now, I think you’re the one who is stereotyping–Dr. Hart. Read “From Sarah Palin to Billy Graham.” Dr. Hart makes a pretty convincing case that some Christians on the political right have mistaken notions about what being a “conservative” really means.
So it is OK to be involved in politics as long as one is meek about it?
Scott, the point is to have a much more conservative and biblical view on the power of politics itself. And what’s wrong with meekness? It’s a biblical virtue. So some of us are trying to bring biblical virtue to bear on politics. For all the blustering about making the Bible relevant to public life, it sure seems like this should be uncontroversial. But maybe it’s not really about bringing biblical virtue to bear as the virtuecrats allege, maybe it’s just a noble front for lending religious sanction to a particular set of politics?
MM, do you have a link to the URC list?
Zrim, Virtue is important, to be sure. However when it is used as a weapon to emasculate the proclamation of truth in the public square, it’s problematic. It’s the mocking and the ridicule of the right wing by some Reformed which gets annoying and is quite condescending. Is that a virtue>
Scott, “proclaim” makes me think of shouting out a message that one knows to be true beause it has been revealed, and which is to be received by faith. Are you preaching in the public square or have political posititions been revealed to you?
When you say virtue is problematic if it hinders what happens in the public square, you may be revealing more of your priorities than you intended.
Scott, it’s not a virtue. But neither is it a virtue to sit in judgment on one’s Christianity by whether one votes Democrat or Republican. I’m just saying.
Scott, not just virtue, but the virtue of meekness, as well as propriety and limits, as in the limits of just what politics can accomplish. And what you call mocking and ridicule of the right seems to be old fashioned skepticism and critique, more virtues of conservatism. Right wing and is not the same thing as conservatism.
MM, link?
I’m not actually subscribed to the URC list but this is the doorway
http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/co-urc/
Just a quick note … I’ve responded to the points raised in this thread over on an earlier thread on the same subject: https://presbyterianblues.wordpress.com/2012/08/14/talking-about-talking-about-2k/#comment-765
Bottom line: the more I look at the 2K movement, the more I think we need to distinguish between radical 2K and moderate 2K theology. More needs to be said, but I’ve already said it in summary over on the other thread.
This 2K movement is still in the early stages of development and I think being charitable — i.e., giving its leaders time to figure out where they’re going — is probably appropriate.
And I’ve responded, DTM. Thanks.
Why does the state bear the sword according to the scriptures?
David, if you have something to say then say it. I’m not your witness to cross examine.
Yeah, some of us, like MLM, do this daily in our vocations. It gets a little tiring when our Christian brothers act like prosecuting attorneys–been there, done that.
Somebody help a brother out; who is DTM, in the sense that it should matter to me? And why does he get to set the table?
Fair question, Sean.
He’s not ordained. His church has not seen fit to call him as an officer. He has no specialized education in theology, philosophy, or church history. And though he sometimes comes off as if he speaking for the masses, he actually speaks for no particular group. He seems to have put the mantle of a prophet on himself as he spreads word of the coming 2k calamity.
I’ve done a coouple posts here about what I consider to be his unprincipled way of speaking on 2k, so I won’t re-hash that here. But he was raised in a political household and he strikes me as someone whose interest in this is not the chuch or theology but political impact.
I gave him my name, job, etc., in a personal email. Then – knowing I just don’t want to mix my means of living with my blogopinions – he posts it. Given all this I don’t know why I still like the guy. He can drop by here as he wishes.
Thanks. You’re just a good guy MM. I know it should be important for me to be that way too, but that notion keeps losing out to the other thought that wants to see how long I can get away with not being one. My wife is often thrilled with my decision making process too.
Oh, I don’t know, Sean. Certain things get me p-o’d and other things don’t. The difference between the two isn’t necessarily indicative of a soul compliant with the Larger Catechism. I might be annoyed by a person who would never do me any harm then fist bump my executioner. My days of puritanesque soul-searching are behind me. The wife schools me sometimes, too. One just hopes the means of grace are making things “better all the time (can’t get no worse..)” That’s the Beatles.
Mikelman, I don’t place a lot of stock in degrees, so you may not be aware that I have an undergraduate degree in theology from Calvin College and spent a number of years as a part-time student at Calvin Theological Seminary. Off the top of my head, I think it was a total of four years part-time in seminary, for the first two years half-time and then after that a couple of courses per quarter, but I would need to check to be sure. That was back in the 1980s and it’s been a long time.
My undergraduate senior thesis was on John Henry Cardinal Newman and his “development of doctrine” concept, with reference to how that Roman Catholic concept later affected the Karl Barth’s concept of doctrinal development from classic orthodoxy to neo-orthodoxy. My studies at the seminary level focused mostly on doctrine and church history; since I was already in the pastorate serving a small church and by then had definitely decided I didn’t want to enter the Christian Reformed ministry, I wasn’t terribly interested in the full M.Div. track. If I had continued my part-time studies I probably would have gotten an MA in historical theology.
I add this not to claim any particular credit for myself — my combined undergraduate and graduate training in the fields of theology, philosophy, and church history is comparable to the number of credit hours as a typical OPC or PCA minister graduating from RTS or Westminster. Calvin’s recommended pre-seminary and mandatory seminary curriculum is far more rigorous than that of most seminaries. But it is not factually correct to say I have “no specialized education” in those fields, unless by “specialized” you mean that I don’t have a post-graduate degree such as a Th.M.
More to the point, I spent a decade as the primary reporter for Christian Renewal when it was the conservative newspaper covering the Christian Reformed Church. Let’s just say I am not unknown in the Dutch Reformed world.
I don’t know why it is of any relevance that I do not currently serve as an officer in my church. Since it seems to be an issue, maybe I should add that when my name was placed in nomination for the church’s board of trustees at a congregational meeting a few years ago (at that point the church was not yet organized with its own elders and deacons), I immediately requested that I be taken out of consideration. I don’t do things halfway and I will not take on responsibilities unless I believe I can do the job right.
I spent many years fighting church battles in the Christian Reformed Church and I am quite willing to take criticism, both justified and otherwise. But some facts are beyond dispute, and the fact that I do not do a lot of talking about my theological education does not mean I don’t have undergraduate and graduate-level study in the field.
I stand corrected then. You have shared biographical details from time to time but I had never seen such. If you have a bio somewhere feel free to provide a link.
But a lot of people might say “hmmm, I’m no more than a pew-sitter in a church. Am I really the one to take the lead – over my pastor, over my denomination, over the elders, pastors, and assemblies of the NAPARC denominations – to blow the trumpet and declare that 2k is outside the bounds of orthodoxy?”
Mikelmann, apologies accepted. We all make mistakes from time to time.
I’d be interested to know where you got the idea that I have no theological training — is that something being said somewhere about me that I haven’t seen?
I value education, but I rarely talk about my degrees. Maybe that’s a mistake on my part. Here in the Ozarks, I’ve got enough problems in a community where almost none of the local ministers even went to Bible college, let alone seminary, and where most of my colleagues in business never went to college unless they are retired military officers who needed a degree to get their officer’s commission through ROTC. Let’s just say I don’t talk about my education very much around here, let alone the fact that my wife and I have five undergraduate and graduate degrees between us, all of them from Christian schools in subjects related to theology, Christian education, or Christian counseling.
I do think you’ve got a valid question about why I’m involved in this “Two Kingdoms” fight. The main reason why is my background in the fight against liberalism during the Christian Reformed secession, and repeated calls by others trying to get me “back in the saddle,” so to speak.
For about half a decade now, dating back at least to 2008 and probably earlier, I’ve been having people in the Dutch Reformed world asking me to get involved in the “Two Kingdoms” fight. I have been resisting those calls for a long time for a number of reasons.
One of those reasons was that I’m out of the Dutch world now, and as long as this looked like an internal URC issue, I did not think it was my problem. The South has lots of problems, but “Two Kingdoms” theology is not on that list.
However, the influence of “Two Kingdoms” theology is growing. It is affecting numerous churches far outside Dutch circles. When I see this theology rearing its head in my world in the Bible Belt — and it now is doing so among some libertarian-minded Republicans in the South who regard “social issues” as a dangerous distraction that harms Republican chances to win elections — it becomes my problem.
The bottom line is I didn’t go looking for this fight. I left the Dutch world for a reason, and I like the Bible Belt a lot. The VanderSomethings came to me asking for help with the “Two Kingdoms” issue, not the other way around.
A closing note about my goals in this regard — please listen very clearly to what I said to Erik Charter over on Old Life. I absolutely am ***NOT*** calling for church discipline, at least not now. There is a big difference between an error and a heresy. To say that I’m prepared to argue against something, and argue against it strongly, is not the same as saying I think the people on the other side of the argument are heretics.
In the Christian Reformed Church, I believe I was fighting a combination of denominational loyalists who believed the Reformed faith but had too much loyalty toward and trust in their denominational leadership, broad evangelicals who were clearly converted but were not confessionally Reformed, and outright liberals who denied the gospel and attacked Scriptural authority. That third group had managed to gain control of key levers of power in a destructive alliance with the first two groups — the same pattern used in the PC(USA) of the 1910s, 1920s, and 1930s, used in the PC(US) in the 1950s and 1960s, and used in most of the mainline denominations.
Most people on the wrong side of church history are not heretics. I do believe “Two Kingdoms” theology is wrong, and seriously so, but apart from Misty Irons, who has already faced considerable ecclesiastical pressure, I’m not prepared to call for charges against anyone in this battle today, and I might never do so, for the simple reason that not all errors are heresy.
“I’d be interested to know where you got the idea that I have no theological training — is that something being said somewhere about me that I haven’t seen?”
You asked, so I’ll anwswer. I don’t think you understand 2k. That points to a lack of ability, a lack of study, or a currently impenetrable ideology that won’t allow it. I’m guessing it’s the latter but life is full of surprises.
I can’t make the argument now and others can make it better than me later but I actually think that if 2k can find a voice in the URC it will help the URC NOT go down the same unfortunate path the CRC did. The CRC is just full of causes to fight for, isn’t it? It’s the gospel and confessional integrity that got crowded out. Now you want to crowd it out with causes from the right instead of causes from the left.
Fair enough, Mikelmann.
My experience is that the large majority of people with seminary degrees today regard them not as academic education on the graduate level — teaching them how to learn and do research — but rather technical education on the graduate level.
What I mean by that is too many seminarians go to seminary with the expectation that they will get ten tips to plant a church with 100 members within two years. Or maybe they expect to get seven solutions to build happy homes, or fifteen strategies for powerful preaching.
When confronted with expectations like that, too many seminaries give students what they expect.
That’s not education. That’s a trade school. And it is utterly inimical to the Reformed faith, owing more to Finney’s “right use of the duly constituted means” than to anything resembling confessional Calvinism.
I guess my point is that I have a lower view of the end products of typical seminary education than you do. I don’t see seminaries, in general, teaching future pastors how to think and research.
Of course there are important exceptions — some seminaries are really good and some seminarians survive bad education — and I am certainly grateful for both.
And no, this is not based on personal experience at Calvin College or Calvin Seminary. Some of what I’m describing was there in the students who wanted to go into home missions work, but it was not a major theme. I’m thinking much more of bad things I’ve seen since then in the PCA and in broad evangelicalism.
M&M, having just left the CRC after 14 years for the URC, I’d agree that 2k can help the latter resist the trajectory toward broad evangelicalism. I know DTM likes to think he fought against liberalism, but while the CRC may have pockets of liberalism (and fundamentalism–think Rabbi Bret) it’s real problem is evangelicalism. The tie that binds the evangie-liberals and the evangie-fundies in the CRC is neo-Calvinism. The wedge that differentiates the evangies and the confessionalists is 2k. 2k wants to take things in a churchly direction, neo-Calvinism in a culturalist direction (see DVD’s chapter in “Always Reformed”). This is the irony I see in DTM–he bemoans the direction the CRC went in but doesn’t see that it owes to the neo-Calvinism he affirms and that the antidote is the 2k he opposes. To add insult to injury he does so with such long wind. Heavens to Murgatroyd–so many pixels spilled to display so much confusion.
PS neo-Calvinism abides deep here in the URC, Scoop will be glad to know. Neos talk about secular education the way Nazarenes talk about beer.
ZRIm, you and I have gone around about this issue before.
We disagree, but that doesn’t mean I don’t think you have a point.
Christian Reformed people read Old Life, too, and some of them are bitter enemies of the Two Kingdoms movement for their own reasons. I’ve had some interesting emails with CRC people over the last week. Those comments give some credence to your view.
My view is that if I can work with a Roman Catholic, a charismatic, a fundamental Baptist, and all sorts of other people in the pro-life movement, I see no reason not to work with someone who is Christian Reformed. Winning in politics means getting to 51 percent and building coalitions, not splitting over secondary and tertiary issues.
Let’s leave the church splits over fine points of doctrine in the sphere of the church. They’re necessary there. They are neither necessary nor helpful in the political realm.
DTM, and if I can find un-Reformed friends who are as skeptical about the pro-life movement then woot. I’ll even take some CRCers.
You forgot Secularists for Life, proof that you don’t need a Xn worldview to come to certain conclusions. But I’m sure they’re just stealing capital, right?
http://secularprolife.org/publications.php
And if you want to leave splits over points of doctrine, I agree. But then you might want to read the Bayly’s statement on baptism:
Baptism was instituted by our Lord. It is a Sacrament of the Church marking those who are members of the New Covenant community. Like the other Biblical Sacrament, the Lord’s Supper, Baptism does nothing by itself. Saving faith is necessary for us to receive grace through this visible sign. This much we are agreed upon with Reformed Protestant brothers down through the centuries.
However, Protestants have been divided over the proper time and mode of Baptism. Concerning time, a compelling Biblical case can be made for baptizing only those adults who make a credible profession of faith. But a compelling Biblical case can also be made for baptizing the believer’s children. Some of the most respected fathers of the Church have stood on opposite sides of this debate. Martin Luther and John Calvin believed children of believers should be baptized. John Bunyan and Charles Spurgeon believed only adult believers should be baptized.
Concerning the proper mode of Baptism (how and where the water is applied), Scripture is silent. Recognizing how divisive these issues have been across Church history, we are committed not to divide over them.
Not exactly consonant with something like Belgic 34. More like the latitudinarian Ev-Free. So why are you throwing in with the Bayly’s if you think doctrine is so vital and they clearly don’t?
To be clear, I don’t agree with Rev. Bayly on baptism.
There are important differences between the Dutch Reformed view of confessional membership and the Presbyterian view of membership based on merely a credible profession of faith. Even in the OPC, it’s not unusual for churches to admit Baptists to membership, though certainly some of the more “TR” churches refuse to do so in both the PCA and OPC.
The simple fact of the matter is that in the PCA, no matter what the official documents say, baptism has long since become a nonessential for membership in many churches — probably a majority — and even in some cases for lay officers. Rev. Bayly’s views are not out of line with what lives in the real world of the PCA.
I suspect I’m a lot closer to ZRim on this than I am to Rev. Bayly. I am also quite aware how people in the PCA look at me strangely when I say churches should think hard before admitting so many baptists to membership that the church effectively changes its doctrine because it no longer preaches aggressively on the purpose for infant baptism.
“So why are you throwing in with the Bayly’s if you think doctrine is so vital and they clearly don’t?”
Because political impact, not the integrity of the church, is DTM’s chief concern.
Sometimes questions are easily answered.
Rev. Bayly has known me for years. He asked me to pull together a lot of things into an essay on the issue, and published it.
If we cooperate only with people who agree with us on virtually everything, we will live in a very small world.
DTM, the bifurcated view of membership of American Presbyterianism that requires only some members to confess and practice the Reformed faith (officers) others not (laity) is what makes the Continental tradition which requires all members to confess and practice the faith superior.
But my point is that if you think confessional doctrine and practice is so important then it would seem to me you’d have less sympathy for those who claim Reformed and show less backbone for it. You keep making the point that you were approached by the raging low churchers to write the hit piece, as if it helps portray you in a less aggressive light. Ever heard of saying no thanks? It would go a fair distance to help your image. But I’m getting the sense the point is to bolster your image as scoop church reporter rooting out all error and all around untruthiness. So I wonder: has it occurred to you that when you race around cyber space, tossing out names and accusations you might end up hurting people? Not that I really care because you come off as not much more than a clanging symbol in the breezy world of blogdom, but for a guy who likes to also claim we’re only in sort out mode and has no agenda to hurt anybody, you sure come off like one who does.
MM:”Because political impact, not the integrity of the church, is DTM’s chief concern.”
DTM: “If we cooperate only with people who agree with us on virtually everything, we will live in a very small world.”
Zrim; “But my point is that if you think confessional doctrine and practice is so important then it would seem to me you’d have less sympathy for those who claim Reformed and show less backbone for it. You keep making the point that you were approached by the raging low churchers to write the hit piece, as if it helps portray you in a less aggressive light.”
Me: Another good use for 2k and in juxtaposition to the culture warriors; In the culture at large-mixed community, tolerance(homosexuals)-Sin but not crime. In the cult or church community; intolerance.-Sin. We don’t adjudicate crime. 1 cor. 5:9
“I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—10 not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13 God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”