Thursday, May 24, 2012

E2k or L2k?

Vocal E2k advocate, Zrim, posted a bizarre recent piece in which he attempted to criticize Pastor Scott's stand for the gospel and against the false gospel of Dayna Muldoon. Of course, he didn't take a manly approach and accuse Pastor Scott of sin and suggest that Pastor Scott seek repentance, instead he was "just asking" about whether Pastor Scott's motives and methods.

Zrim's real problem with what Pastor Scott did seems to be that Zrim thinks that Christians have some kind of moral obligation not to disrupt the worship of idolators. Zrim writes:
I couldn’t help but have a few questions. There are plenty of religious outfits and organizations that tout themselves as channels of Christian and religious orthodoxy even here in Little Geneva that are also far removed from Reformed orthodoxy, from your usual Roman Catholic churches to your Mormon and Jewish Temples, to name just several. Would anyone think of showing up in the middle of their public services and disrupting them in such a bold way? Is there anything unbecoming about what Rodriguez did? Does it matter? Is it possible that Rodriquez is just as given to wanting to be the center of attention as Muldoon might be? Is there a difference between vigorously opposing that which opposes the gospel and singling out certain kinds of opposers as deserving especially forward and blunt criticism? Is this really only about preserving the true gospel and protecting people from being sucked into the cultish maneuvers of wily profiteer and religious wing nut? Is there a biblical justification for this kind of confrontation?
First of all, Zrim should enlighten himself about the particular circumstances surrounding the clip. It was not about ego, but about protecting the flock against the suggestion from Muldoon that Pastor Scott approved of what was going on.

Second, he was invited to speak. He spoke. If I were invited to speak at a Jewish service, Roman Catholic service, or Mormon service, I hope I would be as bold as he was. When we get opportunities to debate these folks, we take that opportunity.

Third, there is Biblical justification. Not only do we have the example of Jehu, but look at Paul the apostle not only at Areopagus but many times in the Jewish synagogues.

Acts 14:1
And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed.
Acts 17:10
And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
Acts 17:17
Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.
Acts 18:4
And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
Acts 18:19
And he came to Ephesus, and left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews.
Acts 18:26
And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

What we really see in E2k is liberalism. The E2kers of Zrim's stripe would be as scandalized by Paul as they are by Pastor Scott. Of course, they wouldn't be so manly as to actually state that Paul is wrong to go into the synagogues and reason with them there, but they would question his motives. It's not very post-modern of Paul to assume that it's ok for him to go into those synagogues and disrupt them in such a bold way. Look at Paul's epistle to the Galatians! Talk about "singling out certain kinds of opposers as deserving especially forward and blunt criticism!"

And forget about Jehu. Is there anything "unbecoming" about his elimination of Baal-worship from the land?

I can see why E2k appeals to post-modern liberals, who think all religions are the same and that there is some kind of "right" to hold religious services, no matter how evil and blasphemous they are. But why would it appeal to any person who has a 66 book canon of Scripture and actually believes what it says? Maybe we should call it "Liberal 2k" instead of "Escondido 2k," since surely there are folks in the faculty at Escondido who would be unwilling to go where Zrim is going here.



Nathan said...

Reading zrim's post over at his blog, he starts off by comparing Pastor Scott Rodriguez "revivalism" with that of Muldoon, as if it were impossible to distinguish between confused libertarians who still believe the gospel (however muddled it might be if you dig deeper) and the Word-Faith Miracle Peddling bunch. I was raised in a Calvary Chapel environment (yeah, I'm one of those guys), and I would never compare it to such heretical environments. Sure, it had its own eccentricities, but they weren't promising miracles and substituting them for the gospel. He basically dismisses the video as mere irony on this basis, instead of recognizing a preacher standing up for the Gospel.

turretinfan said...

Nathan: Agreed. I considered making the focus of this article the inability of Zrim to distinguish between evangelical "revivalists" and those promoting a false gospel. What is remarkable is that for Zrim it seems that the battle lines are not about the gospel, but about his E2k distinctives.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

TurretinFan: "What we really see in E2k is liberalism."

I think you just smashed the nail in the head and driven it in the 2x4 with one mighty swing.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

"Maybe we should call it "Liberal 2k" instead of "Escondido 2k," since surely there are folks in the faculty at Escondido who would be unwilling to go where Zrim is going here."

Liberal 2K works for me. Extreme 2K and Radical 2K are also apt descriptors.

Natamllc said...

In light of several other verses I wonder just how liberal Jesus is then to Zrim and his stripe?

Exo_6:1 But the LORD said to Moses, "Now you shall see what I will do to Pharaoh; for with a strong hand he will send them out, and with a strong hand he will drive them out of his land."
Exo_6:2 God spoke to Moses and said to him, "I am the LORD.
Exo_6:3 I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them.

Act 2:34 For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, "'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand,
Act 2:35 until I make your enemies your footstool.'
Act 2:36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."
Act 2:37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"
Act 2:38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Act 2:39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."
Act 2:40 And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation."

I would say there is nothing liberal about either camp, the Law or the Gospel camps!