1988 issue 9 - the antinomian streak in the reconstruction movement: a review article - counsel of...

8/12/2019 1988 Issue 9 - The Antinomian Streak in the Reconstruction Movement: A Review Article - Counsel of Chalcedon

1/4

The ntinomian Streak in theReconstruction ovement

A Review Article by David E. Rockett

The Antinomian Streak in theReconstruction Movement, byKevin Reed. A Presbyterian HeritageMonograph. (12 pages).

My dear friend and brother KevinReed has written and published a challenging pamphlet which should causeus in the Reconstructionist movementsome sober self-examination. Thoughat points I disagree sharply with Kevinin this review , I give thanks for hisconcern for God's truth and glory and

think he makes some excellent points.Constructive criticism is useful i takento heart. I hope my Reconstructionistsfriends and co-laborers who loveChrist's Kingdom and the ReformedFaith will not ignore these importantissues Kevin raises. We do so to ourown detriment and costs to lasting Kingdom progress. In this review, I willfollow the order of Kevin's monograph .

Kevin's concern and charge throughout the pamphlet is that Reconstructionists neglect the first table of the Law ofGod, (commandments 1 4 which directus how we are to reg rd God and Hisworship); while we press the duties ofthe Second table (commandments 6-10which relate more specifically to ourrelationships with other men).

I believe reconstructionists haveadopted a selective use of the law. Inother words, many theonontists exaltpopular second-table issues, doing injustice to ftrSt -table matters which con-

David E. Rockett Is a ree onlynnandal planner,editor or litenewsletter, h ~

aithful S t ~ w a r dand an elder In theCovenant Presbyterian Church InFONSt, Mississippi.

tain man's pre-eminent duties towardGod." (page 2)

Before we react to charges of partialantinornianism (anti-lawism) , let's confess openly that we are law-breakers atheart. Indignant and pompous replieswould be telling. But for God's regenerating and sanctifying grace in ChristJesus, we would continue in hostilitytoward God and His law. Now, however, as new creations in Christ, welove God's law, and it grieves us that

we do not keep it more carefully andconsistently. Let us not be callous toour sin, but quick to confess. Kevin isat least a little right. We are lawbreakers, and it's not unlikely that wesin more in our duties toward God, thantoward men.

Kevin begins with the ftrSt commandment which prohibits having other godsin the sight of Alntighty God (Exodus20:3). He rightly places the commandin its historic context with the othercompeting gods of Canaan. God warnedIsrael of the corrupting influence ofother gods. God's people are to be pureand removed from pagan gods and paganworship. Kevin then proceeds to indictReconstructionists for cooperating andhaving "common ground" with "Papists, Anabaptists, and blatant infidels,"who are advocates of another go d . Hetakes issue with what he calls PastorJoe Morecraft's "vision for a reconstructed America" by quoting him fromthe Bill Moyers "God and Politics: OnEarth as t is in Heaven" PBS television series where Pastor Morecraftsays:

"Everybody's going to benefit.Whether they're Christians, whetherthey're Protestant Christians or Catholic Christians or Jews or whatever theybe, everybody will benefit from havinga Christian culture . Where Christianprinciples reign supreme, where peoplein places of leadership recognize the

supremacy of God, there will be morefreedom, more prosperity, more securityfor every law-abiding American." (page5)

Kevin comments:Is this the millennia kingdom? Are

we, indeed, he aded for a society where

truth and error dwell side by side inwondrous harmony and prosperity? By'Catholic Christians,' does he meanthose in the Rontish communion -- persons who, by scriptural definitions,are classed as lawless idolaters?" (page5)

Kevin later comments concerningpostmillennialism:

"Formerly, the kingdom was progressing toward an era of the universalspread of the gospel. Now, it seemsdestined to become a n ecumenical haven

for Papists, Anabaptists, an d panderingProtestants alike. Otherwise, how canwe account for the failure to confrontthe Rornish and Charismatic heresieshead-on?'' (page 7)

As helpful as this challenge mightbe, I must beg to differ with brotherKevin's assessment of Pastor Morecraft's conunent. It seems that PastorMorecraft is simply trying to paraphrase GOd's promise to Abraham that

. . in him all families/nations ofthe earth shall be blessed." (Genesis12:3; 18:18; 26 :4; 28:14; and Galatians3:8). Unbelievers do and will continueto be "blessed" by the presence of thegospel and Christian influence. Is notthe partial "blessing" (however shortlived) of Mormons and Japanese due totheir limited conformity to God's law?

Pastor Morecraft is ot defendingtraditional Catholic or Charismatic theology, or appealing for ecclesiasticalunion by restating God's prontise inAbraham Is not Kevin simply readingPastor Morecraft much too criticallyand uncharitably? How does Kevinknow that Pastor Morecraft and other1beonomists have not "confronted theRontish and Charismatic heresies headon?" Surely Kevin would not publiclyjudge an Elder along with all otherReconstructionists in print based uponpresumption and ignorance? But Kevinmust know the substance of all conversations and correspondence between Re

_ _ The Counsel of Chalcedon, September, 1988 P ~ e 2 3


2/4

cpnstructionists, Papists, and Charismatics to prooounce :

"This negligence contravenes boththe first commandment and the command of Christ in the great commission . Therefore, it is nothing short ofbald antinomianism." (page 7

Are Reconstructionists guilty of''bald antinornianism" with regard to theflrst commandment's call for purity ofdoctrine? Perhaps at times we are. Yetit is very easy to fmd Reconstructionists, and Pastor Morecraft in particular ,openly appealing to the necessity of Reformed Theology, the Westminster Confession of Faith and the RegulativePrinciple of worship. [See Editorsnote #1] Shouldn 't we give hiiil andother Reconstructionists the benefit ofthe doubt until we know otherwise?Should we not charitably preswne falseteachings are confronted in private atopportune and appropriate times?

But Kevin all but implies that all"encounters with these people" reoccasions to "call them to repentance;to renounce their affiliation with Rome;to forsake their false worship?" Though

we shouldn't be afraid to awly Galatians 1:8,9 , perhaps Pastor Morecraftand other Reconstructionists know bett r than Kevin the truth of I Thessalonians 2:7,8 with earnest Catholic andCharismatics interested to learn soundtheology?

''But we were gentle among you , justas a nursing mother cherishes her ownchildren . So affectionately longing oryou, we were well pleased t impart toyou not only the gospel o God, butalso our own lives, because you hadbecome dear to us. [See Editorsnote #2]

Kevin's antinomian charge scores alittle better in indicting Reconstructionists for abusing the Second Commandment's prohibition against corruptworship and the use of images. God isjealous for is own worship and theScriptures give redundant emphasis tothe punishments for those who devisedtheir own methods and fonns of worship. (Deuteronomy 12:8-11; 29-32;Exodus 30:9; Leviticus 10:1; Numbers3:4; 26 :1). God does not take theirinnovative actions in worship lightly

We are to worship God s He commands and as He discloses Himself tous in the Scriptures -- not by our owdevised images. We must rememberthat pictorial representations of the Godhead are not only forbidden (Exodu20:4,5), but are restr icting and lirilitingimageS of God (Father, Son and HolySpirit). He is to be known by His revealed Word -- not by visual representations created by hwnan invention .

Kevin notes the wholesale abuse oone particular Reconstructionist group,along with the careless and sloppy useby others of alleged pictures of our LorJesus. [See Editors note #3]Again, we become hypocrites i wexcuse our own law-brealting while promoting the law at other points . Wmust repent and be more careful. ll

God's law is holy and to be revered andobeyed.

But have orthodox Presbyterians"arrived" in all aspects of worship? Cawe say with dogmatic certainty thatthe joy and enthusiasm among sirtcereCharismatics is mere frivolity? Whohasn't been discouraged and disheartened

[Editors note #1- Joe Morecraft's view of the regulative principle has been open to ll for many years. In the December1987 issue of The Counsel o Chalcedon, in the very same sentence in which he suggested ChariSmaticsand Reformed Christianscan learn something from each other in the area of worship, Mr. Morecraft said, "They need our regulative prinCiple of worship.11lat was an unequivocal statement. Personally, in my 43 years, I have found no one more committed to the regulative principle

of worship than Joe Morecraft. And if there is a church in the country whose practice is .more consistent with the regulative principle, I am unaware of it, even though we fall far short of perfection in our worship of Almighty God. See further relevant comments under Editor's note #3 .] [Editor's .note #2- Postmillennialists and anyone who believes the Bible promises a better day for Christianity before thend of this age , may not have given it much thought, but such a "Golden Age" or "Latter Day Glory" will obviously not comeabout overnight, so that we (or those living at the time) will awaken one morning to f'md a suddenly Christianized world . Andcertainly will not happen by sound Christians refusing to have anything to do with less sound Christians. I believe; s yomight imagine, that the "Golden Age" will riot be characterized by Charismati c or Roman Catholic theology and practice butrather by a Reformed theology and practice. I believe that that day will be characterized, predominantly; by a theology and pr J.cti(system of doctrine) which is set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith, and that , very likely, the Westminster Standardswill actually be the predominant creed of most people in the world in those years before Christ returns. My point is, s i m p l yt

-we can expect God to bring about that day by using His soundest people to bring the lost and the less sound people to viewwhich may be described as "the whole counsel of God." And this will happen, surely, through, s some have put i t (albeit nega

tively) "embracing" Charismatics, and others. We do not embrace anyone or any group in the sense that we accept or condone thslightest unbiblical error in their .doctrine or practice, but we must embrace them in some sense i God is going to use us to leathem to cast off their error and take on greater soundness. That seems to me to be a tnrlsm that requires no further comment.] .

[Editors note #3- While it is true that one group calling itself Reconstructionist appears to be making use of certain tt:apings of worship not commanded in Scripture, and rejected by sound, biblical Presbyterianism historically, there is no church,my knowledge, more opposed to such things as "pictures of Jesus" and other such symbols not commanded in the Bible s aidto worship, than Chalcedon . Some peOple, entering our place of worship, are amazed at the plainness a t the front of our ~ u iBehind the pulpit is a large blank wall. A modest communion table sits on the floor in front of the pulpit. There are no i of Jesus, certainly, but also no crosses, no flags , nothing. We do not even have flowers regularly at the front o f he sanctuarybut I don' t see how the occasional times' we do have flowers could be said to be unbiblical aids to worship.

Page 24 The Counsel of Chalcedon, September, 1988


3/4

by the sad demeanor and lifeless, timidsinging in most "orthodox" Presbyterian churches. Indeed, many seem tothink that a down-cast spirit withsomber and joyless reserve is a holydemeanor n worship. The Psalmistwould call it irreverent God deserves

and calls for loud praises in worship.(Psalms 33:3; 98:4; 150:5; 100:1,2 andNehemiah 9:42). But let your voice goin loud vigorous singing in most "confessional" Presbyterian churches andmany, especially the children, will turnaround and look at you like you'recrazy (What are their parents teachingthem?) Would brother Kevin publiclycall for repentance and public humiliation for such disdain for God's glory andpraise? At the point of joyful worshipwith true holy abandon to praise and

glorify God; zealous Charismatics oftenseem more, to use Kevin's words,"fully governed by God's Word" thanconfessional Presbyterians

The best critique in Kevin's pamphletis his antinomian indictment of Reconstructionists for "Sabbath-Bashing."The fourth commandment is AlmightyGod's sovereign claim upon all men."Thou shalt remember the Sabbath dayto keep it Holy." Our rest from ourlabors testifies that we have a HeavenlyKeeper, Provider and Sustainer. On theSabbath we acknowledge that God must

bless our labors or we labor in vain.The Sabbath is spiritual and economic -- a one day in seven tithe of time andlife. It is here where Kevin's charge ofan antinomianstreak within the Reconstructionistscamp stings the most -- because it is

true. God will not bless selective lawkeeping by those who rationalize waysto break certain laws. The "strangerwho is within your gates" (Exodus20: 10) takes note of hypocrisy just asour Lord did with the Pharisees inMatthew 15:1-9. [See Editor s note#4]

Is Kevin right about an antinomianstreak within the Reconstructionistmovement? We must answer yes andno. Yes we are law-breakers in whomthe remaining effects of sin cause us to

excuse our areas of sin (lawbreaking).We must also confess that we as Reconstructionists too often violate first tableissues without rebuke or repentance.All God's law is Holy and to be carefully obeyed. And every jot and tittlemust be obeyed with equal vigor.

Is Kevin also right that our encouragement and friendliness toward certainCharismatics and Catholics, who aremoving in our direction, is irrefutableevidence that we have an antinomianregard for the first table of God's law?Absolutely not Here we must be

faithful to Christ and brothers earnest tolearn sound doctrine. Our duties toChrist require us to spread the riches ofReformed theology to all sincereseekers.

But we are arrogant to think we havearrived and can learn nothing from

others. Neither Reconstructionists norDoctrinal Purists like brother Kevinhave "arrived." Reconstructionists needto be reminded to build on a soundtheological foundation and not toneglect frrst table commands. DoctrinalPurists need to be reminded of thedanger of self-righteous judgmentalismand ignorant presumptions. (RogerWilliams became so "pure" and independent from ordained biblical authority(elders), he only took communion withhis wife -- and suspected her ) God is

not pleased or honored with error ineither direction. In the process of teaching and helping each other, we mightboth learn a few things about thevigorous and joyful worship of ourGreat God, and radical unworldlyobedience to God's law in second tableareas

In all I trust as God helps us learn"Love does no harm to a neighbor;

f

therefore love is the fulfillment of thelaw" (Romans 13:10); we will alsolearn, "Love suffers long and is kind."(I Corinthians 13:4). [See Editor snote #5]

Regarding the situation, mentioned by Kevin Reed in his monograph, where a supposed "picture of Jesus" appeared, among anumber of other pictures, on the cover of a book published by n organization whose main employee is a member of our church,I would only say that the organization is totally independent of our church and the person involved was criticized by an elder ofour church. I think I can safely say that neither Joe Morecraft nor myself nor our church officially, would place such a picture ona publication, although it could well be questioned what that had to do with worship, or whether it in actuality was an affront toGod. The bottom line is that we do not believe in the use of pictures of Jesus in the slightest]

[Edi tor's note #4- Whereas there are some who call themselves Reconstructionists who have weak views of the Sabbath,Pastor Morecraft recommends Questions and Answers 115-121 of the Westminster Larger Catechism as biblical directives forkeeping the Christian Sabbath holy. Personally I would confess, s I recall a minister doing some years ago when being examined, on this subject of the Sabbath, by a Presbytery, for admission as pastor of one of the churches; "My doctrine is betterthan my practice." Without making excuses, I suspect every other Christian in the world could say the same, f rom Joe Morecraft

to Kevin Reed.][Editor's note #5 We are not above criticism; even rebuke at times. However, I feel there are a couple of ways in which

Kevin Reed's monograph was inappropriate and probably unjust One of these matters supports my general aversion to referringto anything s a "movement," s i here were an organic union of the various elements purported to be part of the "movement."Mr. Reed, by the title of his monograph, leaves the impression that each part of the Reconstructionist "movement" isresponsible for the views, theology and practice of all the other parts of the movement. The fact is that one element of Reconstructionism may have a blatantly erroneous view of the regulative principle, to the point of disavowing their adherence to the "principle, and use pictures of Jesus and other unscriptural trappings in worship, but we at Chalcedon Presbyterian Church are notresponsible for their views and their actions. Others may hold a weak view of the Sabbath, and even present such a view in

(Continued on the next page)

The Counsel of Chalcedon, September, 1988 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PagelS


4/4

(Editor's note #5- Continued from the . r e v i o u s p a g e ~ . . .. .. .their writings, but we at Chalcedon Presbyterian Chtirch aie not respc)nsible for their views arid their actions. It seem to mebe highly unjust to throw out a charge concetnirig some indivjdual or org;mization, and imputing the culpability to other individuals or organizations (or churches), who h v ~no official e c c l ~ i s t i c lconnection with the (alleged) guilty party, just bcause the author of the charg e lumps various and sui dry individuals, organizations ~ dchurches together under a geneia.l umbrellaof a movement We at Chalcedon Presbyterian Church' have enough problems of our ow n .without being saddled With the sim

of others, and I suspect others would just as sQori .not be saddled with ourr o b l ~

and sins . , . Another problem which comes to mind , is that th sins (lawlessness, antinomianism) charged by Mr. Reed are iit no way prdominantly, certainly not uniquely , distinct to the Reconstruction movement. I feel I can say , without fear of contradiction, thati Mr. Reed were to take a poll of the leadership and membership of any and every denomination in this country, he would finserious deviations in regard to all the sins he discusses in his monograph . This would be especially true of the regulative principle of worship and the doctrine and practice of he Sabbath. I could write a book on such deviations regarding worship and thSabbath just in the last denomination in which Kevin Reed held membership, namely the PCA. I assume Mr. Reed does not publish monographs calling the PCA to repentance because he has apparently given up on that denomination. It may be a complment that he chose to include us in his criticism, because he apparently believes there is some hope that we may take heed anprogress forward.

. One last matter and I'll be finished. Without wanting to put down my brother, Kevin Reed, too harshly, I think it will not bimproper to call him to repent of some streaks of sin in his own life. First of all , while Kevin implies soundness on his paregarding his keeping the second table of the law , while calling the rest of us to achieve his own near perfection in frrst tablissues , I would suggest that his life and labors do not reflect an adequately serious attention and involvement in second tablissues. Perhaps someone could write a book on , The Anti-Reconstruction Streak in Presbyterian Heritage Publications, o

The Anti -Second Table of the Law Streak in P.HJ>.Finally , let me poke Kevin one last time. I t is my understanding that Kevin is not presently a member of any church. Perhaps

I'll write a monograph entitled, The Anti-authority, Anti -church, Anti-reformed, Anti-communion, An ti -Lord's Supper , AntPresbyterian , Antietc., et c ., etc., Streak in the Life of Kevin Reed.

Kevin has alot to learn. But so do I And so do you. By God's grace we shall grow in sanctification, in thought, word and deeI appreciate David Rockett's response to Kevin's monograph.] D

P a ~ 2 6 The Counsel of Chalcedon, September, 1988

1988 issue 9 - the antinomian streak in the reconstruction movement: a review article - counsel of...

Documents