Here is a well written article regarding the efforts of a few San Diego pastors: http://www.worldmag.com/articles/article.cfm?eid=7EF87E24-A0B5-BDF2-2E3D2AA862332998
Excerpt:
The 14th Amendment equal-protection argument in favor of gay marriage already is trampling First Amendment rights to religious exercise and free speech.
In March 2006, for example, the 103-year-old adoption division of Boston Catholic Charities (BCC) decided to close its doors rather than comply with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ requirement that it place children with homosexual couples. Five months later, the group’s San Francisco branch followed suit. Both moves were direct outgrowths of the legalization of gay marriage and domestic partnerships in Massachusetts and California.
In September 2007, a boardwalk pavilion owned by the Methodist Ocean Grove [New Jersey] Camp Meeting Association lost its state tax-exempt status after the association refused to allow two lesbian couples to hold civil union ceremonies there.
In April 2008, Christian photographers Jon and Elaine Huguenin were fined $6,000 by a New Mexico state “human rights” commission for politely declining on religious grounds to photograph a homosexual “commitment ceremony.”
Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel for Liberty Legal Institute in Plano, Texas, said religious rights of conscience—and not relational equality—are precisely the target in California. “Gays and lesbians there can already be domestic partners, and have all the legal rights of marriage. The Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of gay marriage is about something else,” he said. “It is a direct attempt to establish same-sex couples as morally equivalent to a married man and woman.”
Legal scholars on both sides of the debate agree that if Massachusetts begins exporting gay marriage, and/or California’s gay-marriage law is allowed to stand, it will likely trigger nationwide court clashes that will profoundly alter law and public policy in the areas of employment, education, family law, and even the boundaries of the First Amendment.
The idea that the Gospel doesn’t affect EVERY aspect of life and only applies to Christians is part of what has caused this state that we’re in. The preachers and teachers that are training our clergy to say things like the following are responsible for the degradation of our society:
Proverbs 31:8-9 is the charge to Christ on behalf of his people. Believe it or not, it was not written to the pro-life movement to protect the unborn or to Green Peace on behalf of the whales.Social gospels have ways of circumventing the Christo-centric nature of the Bible.
I’m not saying that America has ever been a perfect idealistic nation-state, but the outward law-keeping it once had was good, to some extent. For example, at least there weren’t MILLIONS of babies being MURDERED EVERY YEAR. There is a blessing even in a non-regenerate population that keeps the law. If a society doesn’t enforce capital punishment for capital crimes, then eventually, when our capital crimes grow rampant (infanticide aka: abortion, rape, public approval of sodomy, etc.), God will bring His justice of capital punishment to our nation. But the sad thing is that these things can only happen if the church becomes impotent. When she deludes herself into thinking that the Gospel is only about an individual’s justification before God, and that the Church is only about the Word and Sacraments, then, AND ONLY THEN, will God’s enemies regain their ground. Jesus told us that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church. Most people think of this in a backwards way. The truth is that gates are stationary. They are there to protect the citizens inside of the city. They are defensive. Which means that Jesus is speaking of the church as OFFENSIVE. The church is to be attacking these gates, NOT defending against them. Instead, we’ve built gates and holed up within the city walls, sorry, I meant to say holed up within the church walls and we’ve let hell come bashing on our doors. We have been so pre-occupied with saving individual’s souls and entertaining them from a stage that used to be a pulpit. We’ve split up the families and created programs for different age groups, that the younger disciples aren’t benefiting from the wisdom of the older disciples. We’ve watered down the Gospel to a man-centered, individualistic psychological feel good alternative, that we’ve forgotten that Christ came to redeem the WORLD. It is HIS. He bought it back, and if we’re not going to get with that program, he’ll prune the dead branches and graft in new living branches that will actually produce fruit.
In Canada, preachers can’t teach the scripture when it comes to calling sodomy a sin for fear of being fined or going to jail. The legislation has made this a hate crime. So, the pessimillenialists that teach that there are 2 kingdoms, and that the church kingdom has nothing to say to man’s kingdom, and that the world will just get worse and worse until the end, will see their beliefs come to pass only if they act upon what they believe. And then they won’t be able to preach and teach without going underground like in China or the old Soviet Union. Mark my words, it can happen here. It’s already starting as you’ve seen above in the excerpt I’ve provided.
Let’s not follow in their footsteps anymore. Let’s become educated with the scriptures and realize that we need to pray that God’s ONE KINGDOM will come ON EARTH as it already is in heaven. And then let us act as if God will answer that prayer.
kazoo
The Reformed Standard 
Good post. Impotence millennialism has a lot to answer for.
You are telling Jesus to come down off his cross, Kazoo. More than what you perceive as the “breaking down of society,” that should give you pause, great pause.
Zrim,
By all mean, an accusation that I am telling my LORD to come down off His cross, does give me pause. Wait a minute… wasn’t he taken down by the disciples and buried in a tomb? Hmmm. Uh, I’m pretty sure I read something about His resurrection too. As a matter of fact, I’m sure of it. Let’s see, what else? Oh yeah, He ascended into Heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father as I recall. Or don’t you subscribe to the early creeds?
Okay, so much for my jovial self. Now I’ll respond with a little more seriousness.
You are going to have to back up you’re accusation that I am telling Christ to come down off His cross. How so? What do you mean by that? Seriously, I know you don’t think Christ is still on the cross, so you mean something else by that. Be more clear and maybe we can engage with something meaningful.
Secondly, Christ CRUCIFIED is an extremely important and central theme to the Gospel, AND I ADHERE TO IT. I love and serve my Savior with as much zeal and passion as I possibly can, and I fall short every day of what He expects from me, and I thank Him and ask His forgiveness constantly. I partake of the means of Grace every LORD’s day, and am grateful for such, and in great need of such. He sustains me, and if He didn’t provide that substitutionary atonement for me, AND THEN ARISE FROM THE DEAD, then I would still be in my sins! God forbid! Instead, I am IN CHRIST and I have His RIGHTEOUSNESS (Yes, both Active AND Passive). So, again, how am I reducing the message of the cross?
Zrim, God is a jealous God, He wants it ALL for Himself. This world is His, and the only second Kingdom in the biblical paradigm of “2 Kingdoms” is the kingdom of darkness, the kingdom of the pagans, which the church is to overcome and take over, as Augustine said in his book “The City of God against the Pagans.”
Thanks for stopping by. I do hope you’ll interact here with more than two sentences in response to this my friend.
Blessings,
kazoo
Kazoo,
First, I am not questioning your zeal just its placement. All your pleading in CAPS and exclamation points doesn’t make your misguidedness go away. Jesus hears you, we all hear you. We get it, you love the Lord. But that doesn’t mean you have your house in order.
Second, what I mean is that, simply, you want the heavenly kingdom to come to bear on the earthly one by means of might; that is the essence of my criticism and I don’t know what else I can say. You want Peter to unsheath his sword. If Peter, who wore is zeal and love on his sleeve as well, could get it wrong, is it not possible that you are terribly misguided as well?
Well, the caps weren’t just to make sure you know I love the LORD. It was to make the point to you that without the resurrection, the cross doesn’t do us much good, based on Paul’s statement I quoted. So don’t forget the resurrection.
But, now you gave me something to deal with. And this with true sincerity. You say:
From the context you are providing, I must take it that when you say “by means of might,” you are speaking of physical force, the use of the police or a military or militia, etc. You speak of Peter with his sword and are inferring that the error of theonomy is the same as Peter’s.
I know my just “saying so” doesn’t make this true, but this isn’t what theonomy teaches. Nor can it be inferred from the true teaching of theonomy. Nor is it a logical result of theonomy’s teaching. I think I know why you might ‘think’ that this is so, but I’d rather give you the chance to explain it to me. Also, how familiar are you with the actual “primary sources” of say Greg Bahnsen or Gary North?
Gotta go for now, sorry to cut it short,
kazoo
Kazoo,
You’re a bit off on your exegesis of the word “gates”. In ancient times, the city gates is where the elders of the city would sit and congregate, the leading men of the city. So when it says that the gates of hell will not prevail, it doesn’t mean that we should take it upon ourselves to storm the gates of hell (I don’t even know where they are anyway), but it just means that hell’s leaders won’t prevail over the church, that the church will win in the end.
But why will the church win? Because the Lamb has conquered through the cross. The victory has already been won, and it was won 2000 years ago. The suffering of the church is her glory in this present evil age. Our suffering is a badge of honor, just as it was for Paul, because we are sharing in the sufferings of Christ. And if we share in his sufferings, it is because we are united to him, and if we are united to him in his sufferings, then we will share in HIS glory.
Don’t worry, the wicked powers that prevail in this age will be defeated. Christ is coming.
You know, if you want an enemy to wage war against, don’t worry about those trying to get gay marriage legalized, wage war against the propaganda of Rome.
For the record, I would be happy to preach against homosexuality even if it were illegal. I did so just a couple of weeks ago, though it is still legal, and I’d do it again.
E
Echo,
Thanks for your encouraging words. I’m so glad that we can agree that Christ is victorious and that the wicked powers will be defeated. I don’t worry about the god-haters trying to legalize their crime, just the silence of Christ’s church.
I’m glad you preach against the sin of homosexuality and that you would do it even if the preaching was illegal. I admire the courage and your willingness to suffer for the Gospel. But would you also preach against the sin of the magistrates who would legalize it? Legalizing it is sin, isn’t it? I mean, even nature testifies to that, right?
Blessings on your head,
kazoo
One more thing, I am aware that in ancient times “gates” could refer to something like the equivalent of our Capitol Building. But surely you aren’t saying that it isn’t possible for the word to mean something else, especially when referring to them with war-like language?
In ancient times, how did cities protect themselves? (I’ll answer this one for you) With walls. I seem to remember an entire book of the Old Testament being written about the rebuilding of the Jerusalem wall. Oh, and what happened to a certain city that Israel marched around? Something to do with walls, right?
Hmm, so if you build a wall around a city, how would one get in and out of the city? Ooo oo oo, pick me! Pick me! Okay kazoo, tell us. Thanks, I will. They built GATES!!! Ding ding ding ding. He’s got that right?
So what if an army were to attack a city with a wall and with gates? Would it make sense to speak of the walls not prevailing against the onslaught of the army? Maybe. But wouldn’t it just make more sense when someone says that the gates of said city wouldn’t prevail against the army? Ahhh, I see! Now I get it.
Oh but this is nonsense. Everyone knows that the only way to exegete the word “gates” is to assume it meant the city’s seat of power each and every time the word is used. I wonder, do you think maybe the two different uses of the word could be related somehow? Maybe, a city would consider the entrance a place that should show off the best of the city and the slums would be elsewhere. And ‘maybe’ the elite elders would like to have their seats of power located near these physical gates and that’s how the term became likened to the seats of power. Ohhhhh, I see. Wow, kazoo, you’re pretty smart (as in ‘smart alec’).
Thanks for playing Echo. You win the consolation prize. I guess I should be glad it was my old friend Echo and not Magma that came over to play. Magma probably would have skewered me by now on the horns of “heretic.” 🙂
kazoo
You gotta love the forceful and contrived correlation of Theonomy and effeminacy in the comment, “your theonomy skirt is showing”.
First, you gotta love the contradiction of it: If Theonomy is not the ultimate standard, then what is wrong with men acting like women? Wherein lies the insult?
Second, you gotta love the pure nerve it would take to tell someone like King David, for instance, who had killed his tens of thousands, that an affection for God’s Law is anything less than the height of manliness.
Nice one, Zrim. But we know you weren’t arguing properly. 🙂
Many writers today are calling for a greater emphasis on the resurrection. What’s overlooked, ironically, is the importance of Christ’s ascension.
“In the third petition, which is, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven, we pray that God, by his grace, would make us able and willing to know, obey, and submit to his will in all things, as the angels do in heaven.”
Who is the “we” into whose mouths the SC puts these words?
I’ll bite:
the “we” is obviously those that pray the prayer, namely the disciples, which will eventually be the vast majority of people in all nations that will be taught to obey ALL that Christ commanded. So all these people will have the LORD answer their prayers to be able and willing to know obey and submit to His will in all things (including the government) just as the angels do in heaven.
Forget Rushdooney and Greg Bahnsen, since you don’t like them. I’ve got another R & G for you to learn from. They were key leaders from Scotland that helped to give us the Westminster Standards, Rutherford & Gillespie.
🙂
kazoo
Obviously you got my point, and then tried to evade it. Whether the “we” is “the vast majority of all people in all nations”, or an exiled people, living in tents, whose kingdom is not of this world, we confess that “thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven,” does not mean “Lord, I pray that you will (help me) make those sinful unbelievers behave”, but rather “Lord, I pray that you will make me, a justified sinner, behave.”
And you skipped over my first point. What do you see as the importance of Christ’s ascension? I bet you see the ascension as even more reason (than just the resurrection) to Christianize world governments. I see it as less.
Okay, I’ll pull out the bigger guns and spend a little more time on this response for you. I’ll even use your confession links to show you that Christ’s Kingship is more than just within the body of believers.
So, His kingship ordains magistrates FOR HIS OWN GLORY. His Kingship over them is so that they will defend and encourage do-gooders, and punish EVIL DOERS. Now, are these just evil doers that are covenant members? Certainly I’ll agree that there are some that exist and when disciplined but still unrepentant they must be expelled. But surely you don’t think that the evil doers our fathers speak of here don’t include those outside of the covenant. You might think our fathers were wrong, but then we have a different problem to deal with.
If He is not King of the whole world, then what gives him the right to call us out of the world? As King, he orders all things. As King, he takes vengeance on those that are not a people unto himself.
But let’s make it a little easier to understand, shall we?
What does it mean to conquer an enemy AS KING? It means that even the enemies have a new King.
His Kingship is progressively dwarfing the other kingdoms (notice that is plural).
Now, as to ascension, I believe that we are told that He is seated at the right-hand of the Father. As far as I have been taught, that is the seat of power. He is sitting in the true throne of David ruling and reigning even now as King in Heaven, and extending that already bought and paid for Kingdom here on earth, through us His people, by use of the sword of the Spirit, the Word of God, preaching the Gospel, bringing that vast sea of people into the church. As such, the kingdoms of this world will become His, they shall be populated with His people called unto Him, they shall covenant together with lawful oaths and vows as a nation that will serve the living King.
Am I still evading? World governments btw, are just a small little part of the greatness of the great commission, but I guess you guessed right. You see in my answer here WHY I believe that. What I don’t see is why you think that it is an example that we are to follow, one of ‘escapism.’ Christ surely didn’t ‘escape’ from this world to go hide in heaven. Right?
Surely not ‘hide’ in fear, but certainly withdraw, and suspend his coming in power and glory until the Last Day.
All your ‘proofs’ of your view of the nature of Christ’s Kingship beg the questions When and How.
You have a Theology of Glory, not a Theology of the Cross — this is not to say that your theology doesn’t include some stuff about the cross; what it means is that the core of your theology is glory-based, not cross-based. You may deny that you are “telling Jesus to come down off his cross,” but you cannot deny that you are telling Jesus to come down out of Heaven (Rom 10:6 anyone?) and get busy exercising all that authority he’s been given.
Rube,
Really? All of them?
As to When: WCF 23:1 speaks of Him as King of the World ordaining civil magistrates. So WHEN do you think this is speaking of?
As to How: WCF 23:1 speaks of the magistrates duty and even answers the WHY of that duty. Isn’t this one part of the “how?”
Q. 45. How doth Christ execute the office of a king?
A. Christ executeth the office of a king, in calling out of the world a people to himself, and giving them officers, laws, and censures, by which he visibly governs them; in bestowing saving grace upon his elect, rewarding their obedience, and correcting them for their sins, preserving and supporting them under all their temptations and sufferings, restraining and overcoming all their enemies, and powerfully ordering all things for his own glory, and their good; and also in taking vengeance on the rest, who know not God, and obey not the gospel.
So how am I begging the question of “when” with this one? Aren’t you and I called out of this world NOW? If so, then I guess He’s exercising that kingship NOW, right? Seems to me that if you want to say that part of this answer is only for the future, that you’re the one begging the question as to “when” as well as being “arbitrary.”
Doesn’t this answer also tell us “how?” I see a lot of verbs here referring to “how” Christ executes his office of kingship. Don’t you?
Next question:
I’m going to attempt to re-write this the way I think you would be more comfortable. Tell me if I’m close:
Is that about right?
As to the Romans and Revelation quotes, I think it is pretty clear from the context that the “when” will be at the end, i.e. judgement day. Now, I will grant you that the “how” is up for debate, which is why I am debating it with you. 😉
You seem to think the the how will be “instantly,” (faster than a speeding bullet or the 6 days it took God make creation). I believe he started it from the day he prophesied that the seed would crush the serpent’s head and that it is a progressive “how” in accordance to the mustard seed parable. I mean really, that parable was to describe “the kingdom of heaven,” was it not?
Rube, you would have Jesus saying: “The Kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, one day you plant it, the tiniest of all seeds, then you wait and wait and wait for thousands of years, and when you’re not looking, it becomes the biggest tree of them all, just like magic, overnight.” (sort of like the YEC’s think the world was made. 🙂
A Theology of Glory can’t exist without the Theology of the Cross, since it required Christ to be sacrificed so He could be resurrected and “Glorified.” However, you want to leave Christ on the Cross until Judgement day, and then he’ll be glorified. See, you’re theology of the cross can be had without the theology of glory, but the reverse isn’t true, so who’s upside down now?
Love ya man!
kazoo
I gotta go (see you at church?), but just quickly, I would say that Christ sometimes restrains and conquers his and our enemies now, and that will stay about the same until the Next to the Last Day, at which time there will be no question of restraint — nothing but conquer. In fewer words, during this age, Christ’s conquering is restrained. (Whereas during the intrusion age of national Israel, it was much less restrained).
Okay, I’ll let that slide as a “gotta go” answer. I thought about going to church tonight, but am too tired. I’m at home with the kids and gonna watch a movie with them tonight instead.
But, I’ll be expecting a more complete answer to come in later, since you, unlike zrim, actually want to argue properly.
kazoo
It’s been a while, and I don’t know that there’s much left to say, but certainly you can have a Theology of Glory without a Theology of the Cross, if you view the Cross to be in a different “dispensation” — the Resurrection abrogates the Cross, replacing it with Glory. Or Cross theology gradually becomes obsolete once the postmillenial golden age begins. Either way you have the Kingdom coming in power & glory before the King comes in power and glory!
Cross for now, Glory for later.
Okay, this will come out of left field, but is germane to the conversation. Reading Sozhenitsyn last night, I came across this jewel—sounds a LITTLE bit like Kazoo! …Solzhenitsyn’salternative to the calamity of autonomous, irreligious humanistic consciousness has never been a romantic communal or theocratic society, but rather a free one where individual rights are limited by “the moral heritage of Christian centuries with their great reserves of mercy and sacrifice.”
and further he is a “partisan of “liberty under God” against the pernicious illusion that men can build a world that defers no limits above the autonomous human will.”
Amen.
Notwithstanding the naysayers, what a glorious future is in store for the children of God. Yes, the gospel of the Lord Jesus will transform the world! Let us rejoice that there is a day coming, when “[T]he earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the the waters cover the sea.”
And what about the great commission to disciple the nations? Let’s hear from the Puritan Mathew Henry.
In his commentary on Matthew, Henry writes, “What is the principle intention of this commission; to disciple all nations. … Admit them disciples; do your utmost to make the nations Christian nations; … go, and disciple them.”
Amen to DaveM.
Kazoo