Saturday, May 24, 2008

Is W2K Pro-Choice?

Readers of this blog know the hard stand I take against W2K (Westminster Two Kingdoms) theology. The reason I single out W2K is because, 1) I'm familiar with it, and, 2) I view it as social antinomianism (lawlessness) masquerading as Christian orthodoxy.

Professing to chart a third course between (or perhaps around) the liberal-conservative standoff, W2K makes the case that one's personal faith (including one's ethical commitments) is only indirectly related to what one thinks is good for society. In this way W2K disengages the personal and social spheres, so that one can personally be "against," say, homosexual sex or abortion, but can publicly advocate and support gay rights or legal abortion.

Proponents of W2K aren't merely interested in promoting the modern liberal rights agenda. They work most effectively as public examples of a mythical creature both theologically conservative and politically liberal. This works quite well for the mainstream media that likes to trot out useful idiots like Michael Horton (a Christian theology expert) and Darryl Hart (a respected historian of American Christianity) to inform readers / viewers that one can believe in the Virgin Birth and not be Republican.

Well, certainly membership in a political party is not the same thing as membership in a Chrisian church. Nor does political conservatism = Christianity, per se. But it can be argued there is something wrong with a Christian "orthodoxy" that says society is not bound to acknowledge God's Lordship and Law. You can be assured I will do all in my power to expose the subversive tendencies inherent in W2K.

As of the writing of this post, two W2Kers I've recently dialogued with have failed to acknowledge a political commitment against abortion. You can read the exchange here. But even if one or both do eventually express a personal political commitment to the legal recognition of the sanctity of human life, W2K remains in essence a strategy to separate civil law from its foundation in divine law.


Anonymous said...

See my comment over at

D Hart

Josh Walker said...

Did you call Michael Horton an "idiot"?

Andrew Matthews said...

Not exactly, Mr. Walker. Anyone who has looked at Horton's scholarly work would say he is very intelligent indeed. But sometimes very intelligent people can be used to provide credibility or support for positions/agendas they wouldn't necessarily want to be associated with. If you get a chance, look up where Horton has been quoted in secular news articles and see how his "expert opinion" fits into the writer's narrative.

I happen to not buy into Horton's eschatological dialectic, which is a transmutation of his personal prejudices into a (highly arbitrary) hermeneutical method, but that's a different issue.

Josh Walker said...

Well, using harsh words like "idiot" to describe a Christian brother is not going to cause people from the "other team" to listen to your point of view. If you want people, like me, who agree with Horton to give your view "the time of day," you would do better to leave the harshness to the side. But if you just want to play to "your crowd," by all means continue.

Andrew Matthews said...

Thanks for your opinion.

Xon said...

Josh, "useful idiot" while provocative, is really a "cultural IQ" kind of term, not immediately equivalent to a claim that someone is an idiot. See Marx and Lenin, who actually coined the term.

Useful idiots are (often very smart) people who inadvertently (probably out of some sort of naivete) allow themselves to be used for an agenda to which they do not themselves subscribe. That is all the term means. Don't get so hung up on the term "idiot." An "idiot" is, etymologially, a "layman," a person not privy the inner-circle goings-on.