|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 1, 2023 16:11:58 GMT -5
www.statementonchristiannationalism.com/
THIS IS A DRAFT VERSION
PLEASE SEND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGES BELOW OR THROUGH DM TO @cngstatement on Twitter
Draft 1 was released on May 1, 2023. Version 2 was released on May 23, 2023.
The final version will take shape in mid-July at the Council on Christian Nationalism
with a single-day conference to follow.
Authors: James Silberman, Dusty Deevers.
Contributing Editors: William Wolfe, Joel Webbon, Jeff Wright, Cory Anderson.
DEFINITION
CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM is a set of governing principles rooted in Scripture’s teaching that Christ rules as supreme Lord and King of all creation, who has ordained civil magistrates with delegated authority to be under Him, over the people, to order their ordained jurisdiction by punishing evil and promoting good for His own glory and the common good of the nation (Isaiah 9:6-7; John 1:1-3; 3:35; 17:2; Ephesians 1:20-21; Philippians 2:9-11; Colossians 1:15-18; Romans 13:1-4; 1 Peter 2:14; Deuteronomy 6:5, Matthew 22:37-39).
INTRODUCTION
Christian Nationalism is primarily concerned with the righteous rule of civil authorities, not spiritual matters pertaining to salvation. The desire for a Christian nation is not a distraction from the Gospel but rather an effort to faithfully apply all of Scripture to all of life, including the public square. As such, Christian Nationalism is not just for civil authorities, just as submitting to Christ’s Lordship is not just for civil authorities but for all people. After the Lord Jesus declared His sovereign authority (Matthew 28:18), He gave the Great Commission and commanded His followers, empowered by His everlasting presence, to make disciples of “all nations” and to baptize them and “teach them to obey all that I have commanded” (Matthew 28:19-20). Our Lord did not exclude all civil authorities from the command to submit to His authority and display allegiance to Him.
We recognize the existence of other definitions of Christian Nationalism. We certainly do not endorse every iteration of Christian Nationalism and explicitly repudiate some such forms, as will be evident in our affirmations and denials.
You may sign this document and delineate if you affirm civil authorities legislating both tables of the law or only the second table after the article.
We are honored to receive signatures now if you affirm the statement as it stands. We do not accept anonymous signatures. In July, we will host an editorial summit to discuss any necessary amendments, followed the next day by a conference (details forthcoming).
We affirm and deny the following propositions:
AFFIRMATIONS AND DENIALS
Article I: The Source of Truth
WE AFFIRM that the Bible is God’s Word, breathed out by Him as the only sufficient, certain, inerrant, infallible, necessary, and final authority for all saving knowledge, faith (what we must believe), and obedience (how we must live). We affirm that the light of nature in man and God’s works in creation and providence reveal God’s power and nature, leaving civil authorities without excuse for failing to govern justly as His servants, yet this knowledge is insufficient for repentance unto life in salvation. All truth claims and ethical standards must be tested by God’s final Word, which is Scripture alone. We affirm that the Bible is clear in all essential matters.
WE DENY that true beliefs, good character, or good conduct can be dictated by any authority other than God’s revelation.
Scripture: 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Psalm 19:7-10; Isaiah 8:20; Romans 1:18-21; 2:14-15; Hebrews 4:12; 13:4; 2 Peter 1:19-21.
Article II: Orthodox Christian Faith
WE AFFIRM that nations are commanded to honor God by officially affirming the orthodox Christian faith as historically and universally defined and affirmed in the creeds (e.g., Apostle’s Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed). We affirm that many denominational confessions articulate the orthodox Christian faith. We affirm that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, revealed in Scripture alone, to the glory of God alone.
WE DENY that a Christian nation must require or preclude membership in any particular confessional tradition or denomination.
Scripture: Acts 20:27; 1 Corinthians 15:1-5; 1 Timothy 3:2, 9; 4:1, 6; 5:8; 6:3, 10, 21; Titus 2:1; Jude 3.
Article III: The Standard of Justice
WE AFFIRM that God’s Word is authoritative on everything to which it speaks, and we affirm that God’s Word speaks abundantly regarding the nature and importance of civil government and justice. We affirm that God's moral law is enduring and binding on all people throughout all time, including civil authorities and nations, and that it is summarily comprehended in the Ten Commandments. We further affirm that every political thought must be taken captive to the obedience of Christ. We affirm that Christ will judge every civil authority according to their conformity to His command.
WE DENY that there is any objective standard by which to discern justice from injustice outside of God’s revelation, written on the heart and most perfectly revealed in Scripture. We deny that faithful civil authorities may rule autonomously from the rule of Christ. We deny that God approves of Christians embracing any political ideology or position prohibited by Scripture.
Scripture: 2 Timothy 3:16-17; Isaiah 42:4; Matthew 5:17; Luke 12:42-48; Isaiah 1:10-17; Amos 5:10-24; 2 Corinthians 10:4-6, Exodus 20:1-17; Romans 2:14-15; 13:1-4.
Article IV: The Definition of a Nation
WE AFFIRM that a nation is not merely an idea, abstract principle, or ideology but tangibly defined by a particular body of people in a particular place. We affirm that a particular people are necessarily bound together by a shared culture, customs, history, and lineage while sharing common interests, virtues, languages, and worship. We affirm, in regards to “place” that a nation is definitively set by both its borders and times physically defined by God (Acts 17:26). Thus, we affirm that nations should rightly maintain autonomous government of their people and place, with the necessary rights and duties to (1) prioritize the security of its people by maintaining its borders, providing for its common defense, and repelling invasions from without and insurrections from within; (2) promote the prosperity of its citizens; and, (3) enforce justice.
WE DENY that a nation should cede its sovereignty to international bodies that may subvert the will of the national interest for a global order. We deny any efforts to establish a “one world” governmental system before the return of Christ, as such efforts are a reenactment of the Tower of Babel. We further deny that sovereign nations must only be composed of mono-ethnic populations to be united under God. Therefore, as Christian Nationalists, we utterly repudiate sinful ethnic partiality in all its various forms.
Scripture: Genesis 11:1-9; Deuteronomy 1:17; 16:19-20; Psalm 2:8; 22;27; 82:2-4; Isaiah 2:2-3; 49:6-8; John 7:24; Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 17:25-26; 20:21; Colossians 3:11; 1 Timothy 5:21; James 2:1-6, 9; 3:17; 1 Peter 1:17; Revelation 7:9.
Article V: The Nature of Christ’s Lordship and Kingdom
WE AFFIRM that in addition to possessing the titles of Savior, Messiah, and many others, Jesus, the Son of God, Who is truly God, is also the King of all earthly kings, the Lord of all earthly lords, and the Lawmaker for all earthly lawmakers. He is the possessor of all authority in heaven and on earth. We affirm that as God, Jesus Christ is preeminent over all creation, sovereignly rules over all things visible and invisible in heaven, earth, and hell, and ordains all things according to the counsel of His perfect will for the good of those in Him. We affirm that in His mediatorial rule, Christ rules by His Spirit and Word through the saints in their earthly authority. We also affirm that as sovereign King of kings, Christ has commanded all civil authorities, Christian and non-Christian alike, to execute His will on the earth to orient humankind toward Himself through the moral law. We affirm that Christ alone, through the blood of His cross, grants repentance and forgiveness of sins to reconcile sinners to His Father.
WE DENY any theology which would seek to segregate sacred aspects of life, where God’s Word is authoritative, and supposedly secular aspects of life, where the Christian must operate by a standard other than God’s Word. We deny any theology which claims that bringing God’s Word into the civil sphere is unwise, unfruitful, sinful, or anything other than fitting and required. We deny that Jesus’ kingship and lordship are merely heavenly or that His Word is only authoritative over confessing Christians. We deny that, solely by virtue of their claims to authority or the claims of those who support them, any human or group of humans who claim to be civil authorities are, in actuality, recognized by God to be civil authorities.
Scripture: Scripture: Hosea 8:4; Isaiah 9:6-7; Matthew 28:16-20; Acts 2:36; Romans 2:5; 13:1-5; 16:20; Ephesians 1:19-23; Philippians 2:9-11; Colossians 1:16-17; 2:9-10; Jude 6; Revelation 1:4-5; 17:14; 19:11-16.
Article VI: The Identity of Civil Authorities and the Source of Their Authority
WE AFFIRM that civil authorities are God’s servants of justice who must know who their Master is and what He requires of them. We affirm that all human authorities, including civil, possess authority only as it has been delegated to them by God and, accordingly, are accountable to Him to serve the people as revealed in His Word.
WE DENY the authority of civil officials and documents to contradict what God has said in His Word or to govern beyond the bounds God’s Word has established for them.
Scripture: Romans 13:1-4; Acts 5:29; Exodus 1:15-22; Daniel 3; John 19:11; Psalm 2:10-12; 1 Timothy 6:13-16.
Article VII: The Duty of Civil Authorities
WE AFFIRM that God has armed civil authorities with the sword of justice to promote citizens’ welfare without partiality by (1) writing and enforcing just laws that are a terror to those who do evil, (2) defending and approving those who do good, and (3) avenging victims of crimes with speedy justice and proportional punishments for evildoers.
We affirm that civil authorities must ensure that the church shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions without violence or danger. We affirm that civil authorities must discharge this duty without showing favoritism to, or bias against, any Christian denomination for their historic beliefs and teachings. We affirm that the government has the duty to intervene to prevent or stop any ceremonial practices that violate the moral law.
We affirm that civil magistrates have lawful authority to punish civil crimes like assault, murder, rape, theft, fraud, man-stealing, and false witness, and to ensure proper due process through the civil courts, payment of liability for verifiably proven harm, and proportionality of punishment.
WE DENY that civil authorities are tasked with being the caretakers of citizens or educators of children, as these duties belong primarily to the Church and to families, respectively. We deny that the civil government should endeavor to take on these responsibilities, and we deny that they do so to the benefit of society. Rather, such “charity” displaces families by creating a culture of dependence upon the state whose education tends to debauch children with godless philosophies and perverse instruction. We deny that, in Scripture, God ever approves of tolerance toward depravity like child sacrifice and mutilation and promotion of open, sexual perversion. We would follow our King, and He does no such thing.
Scripture: Genesis 1:27; 2:24-25; 9:5, 6-8; Exodus 21:12, 16, 18-19; 22-25, 33; 22:1; Leviticus 19:15, 35-36; Deuteronomy 1:16-17; 16:18-20; 17:6; 19:15-21; 22:25; 25:13-16; Ecclesiastes 8:11; Matthew 19:4-6; Romans 13:1-4; 1 Timothy 2:2.
Article VIII: The Purpose of Civil Government
WE AFFIRM that God’s purpose for civil government is to establish justice for His glory and the good of all people. We affirm that unjust laws harm people and that just laws reflect the character of God and point people toward their need for a Savior.
WE DENY that the purpose of civil government is to establish a secular, neutral, or godless order. We deny that any government is capable of neutrality as every individual and system has moral preferences and functional gods (i.e., ultimate allegiances and ultimate standards by which they judge reality). We further deny that natural law is a different standard from God’s moral and universal law summarily comprehended in the Ten Commandments.
Scripture: Matthew 12:30; 1 Corinthians 10:31; Galatians 3:24; Colossians 3:17, 23; 1 Peter 4:10-11; 2 Peter 3:18; Exodus 20:1-17.
Article IX: Spheres of Authority
WE AFFIRM that God has established spheres of authority such as the home, the Church, and the civil government. We affirm that God has given unique responsibilities and instructions to authorities within each sphere. We affirm that authorities in each sphere are subject to the rule of Christ, each retaining authority over its own sphere while being checked and balanced by the others. We affirm that parents, as the authority in the home, have been given the “rod” for instruction, training, and discipline in wisdom and righteousness. We affirm that only the Church has been given the “keys of the kingdom” for the binding and loosing of gospel professions (i.e., the practice of church membership and discipline) as well as God’s Word for the preaching of the law and gospel with the aims of conversion, sanctification, and discipline. The civil government has been given the “sword” as God’s servants to maintain justice and civil order by punishing evildoers, avenging the innocent, commending the good, and, thereby, promoting citizens’ general well-being.
We affirm that Jesus Christ has appointed over His Church both government and discipline, and no law of any government should interfere or hinder the due exercise thereof among the voluntary members of any assembly of Christians, according to their own profession and belief.
WE DENY that human authority in any sphere possesses absolute or unchecked authority, even within their sphere, as Christ delegates all human authority; therefore, all are accountable to Christ and His moral law whether they acknowledge it or not.
We deny that civil authorities may assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven for church discipline but must be uniquely protective of the free exercise of the Christian faith according to the dictates of conscience under the orthodox Christian faith.
Scripture: Proverbs 13:24; 22:15; Deuteronomy 6:7-9; Ephesians 6:1-4; 1 Samuel 2:8; Psalm 62:11; Proverbs 8:15-16; Jeremiah 27:5; Daniel 2:21; 4:32; 5:21; John 19:11; Romans 13:1; 1 Peter 2:13-17; Revelation 1:5; 17:14; 19:16; 2 Chronicles 26:18; Matthew 16:19; 18:17; 1 Corinthians 12:28–29; Ephesians 4:11–12; 1 Corinthians 4:1–2; Romans 10:15; Hebrews 5:4; John 18:36; Acts 5:29; Psalm 104:15; Acts 18:14–15.
Article X: On Nationalism and Policy Priorities
WE AFFIRM that nations possess an inviolable right to establish justice and safeguard the peace and prosperity of their own citizens. We affirm that implementing Christian Nationalism in each nation will pursue punishment of each nation’s great evils and promote each nation’s thriving. We affirm that the specific, short-term priorities of Christian Nationalism in the context of the United States are to call our nation, in her laws, formally to acknowledge the Lordship of Christ, to declare solemn days of humility and repentance, to abolish abortion, to define marriage as the covenant union of a biological male a biological female, to de-weaponize the federal and state bureaucracies which target Christians for censorship and persecution, to secure our borders and defend against foreign invaders, to recapture our national sovereignty from godless, global entities who present a grave threat to civilization like the United Nations, the World Health Organization, the World Economic Forum, etc., and, to exercise restraint in international military intervention and adventurism in overseas “democracy building.”
We affirm that different forms of just government can achieve just laws, and we do not seek to coerce nations into one particular form of government.
WE DENY that seeking to maintain and assert national sovereignty has anything to do with prejudice against any particular ethnicity or nation. We deny that sinful ethnic partiality has any place in the Church of Jesus Christ or in a nation that seeks to honor Him; on the contrary, a Christian nation would be impartial in judgment.
Scripture: Jonah 3:6-10; Exodus 20:12; 2 Chronicles 7:14; Exodus 20:13, Genesis 1:27, 5:2; Deuteronomy 6:7-9; 16:18-20; Ephesians 6:1-4; Romans 13:1-4.
Article XI: Big Picture Agenda
WE AFFIRM that the Christian Nationalist project entails national recognition of essential Christian Orthodoxy (Article II) as a Christian consensus under Jesus Christ, the supreme Lord and King of all creation, and the establishment of the general equity of the Ten Commandments as the foundational law of the nation. We affirm the responsibility of civil authorities to protect the soul, not to convert the soul.
ALTERNATIVE OPTION FOR THOSE WHO AFFIRM
LEGISLATING ONLY THE SECOND TABLE
WE AFFIRM that the Christian Nationalist project entails national recognition of essential Christian Orthodoxy (Article II) as a Christian consensus under Jesus Christ, the supreme Lord and King of all creation, and the establishment of the general equity of the second table of the Ten Commandments (laws 5-10) as the foundational law of the nation, with warnings informing citizens of the consequences of blaspheming the One, True, and Living God often resulting in second table violations, namely, the harming of our neighbors’ lives and property.
WE DENY that laws against public blasphemy coerce conversion or hinder religious liberty in private.
Scripture: Exodus 20:1-17; Deuteronomy 5:1-22; Matthew 22:36-40; Romans 3:20-21; 13:8-10; James 2:8-10.
Article XII: On the Vocation and Calling of Christian Officials and Legislators
WE AFFIRM that God extends the rule of Christ in the world by calling to and gifting Christians as His servants on vocation as civil authorities. We affirm that citizens are to submit to our civil authorities, as unto Christ, for His glory and our good. We affirm the need for more theologically sound Christians to enter the political realm to proclaim the excellencies of Christ and His Law.
WE DENY any theology which holds that Christian participation in the civil realm is necessarily unwise, unfruitful, sinful, or anything other than a fitting and necessary vocation and calling for Christians.
Scripture: Exodus 18:13-26; 20:12; Deuteronomy 1:17; 16:18-20; 17:1-20; Isaiah 1:17; Romans 13:1-4, 6; 1 Corinthians 7:7, 17; 2 Corinthians 9:8; 1 Timothy 6:18; 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
Article XIII: The Great Commission
WE AFFIRM that Christ’s commissioning of His Church to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them, and teaching them to obey all that He has commanded includes civil authorities who are to be called to repentance, faith, and obedience to Christ. We affirm that the Church is to instruct civil authorities regarding their identity and duties as servants before the throne of Christ. We affirm that this duty is a Great Commission issue.
WE DENY that there is any sphere of life in which the command “teach them to obey all that I have commanded” does not apply, including politics and government.
Scripture: Matthew 28:16-20; Luke 18:1-8; Philippians 2:9-11; 1 Corinthians 10:31.
Article XIV: The Uses of the Law
WE AFFIRM that applying the core moral principle of each of the Ten Commandments to a nation’s laws, also known as “general equity” (1) reflects to citizens both the perfect righteousness of God and our own sinfulness and shortcomings; (2) secures civil order by restraining evil through protecting the righteous from the wicked; and (3), guides Christians into the good works that God has planned for them, and thus are an essential aspect of keeping the Great Commission in teaching all nations to obey everything Christ commanded.
We affirm that God is the Creator of all and gives grace to the world. We affirm that God is the Savior of many, calling them through the gospel.
We affirm that no man will be saved by works done under the law. Yet we affirm that the law is a tutor, and when laws are just, they accurately reflect the character of God, and in this way alone, just Christian governments serve the Church in its mission of evangelism. We affirm the inescapable reality that civil authorities possess a moral and spiritual foundation and orient citizens toward truth and morality, whether good or evil.
WE DENY that God intended the Ten Commandments solely for Old Covenant Israel, but rather they it represent the enduring righteousness of God that is to be loved and obeyed for the good of man and the glory of God.
Scripture: Romans 3:20; 4:15; 5:13; 7:7-11; Galatians 3:19-24; Deuteronomy 13:6-11; 19:16-21; Romans 13:3, 4; Ephesians 2:10; Titus 3:8; Ezekiel 36:27; Jeremiah 32:39-40.
Article XV: On the Distinction Between Law and Gospel
WE AFFIRM that the gospel is the royal announcement to the world about God acting in the person and work of Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit to abolish sin and death and reconcile sinners and the world to Himself through His sinless life, substitutionary death, resurrection, ascension, reign, and future return just as God graciously planned from eternity, promised throughout Scripture, and achieves within history. We affirm that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, revealed in Scripture alone, and to the glory of God alone. We affirm that all sinners are commanded to repent and believe the gospel and, upon doing so, are justified before God, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and caused to love God and His Law and to walk zealously in good works that God has prepared. We affirm that Christ’s kingdom is at hand and that He will continue to work until all His enemies are defeated, and the knowledge of His glory covers the earth as the waters cover the sea.
We affirm that God gave Adam a Law of universal obedience written on his heart, that this same Law continued to be the perfect rule of righteousness after the fall, and that God delivered it upon Mount Sinai in Ten Commandments. We affirm that the general equity of this Law is the essential moral principle embedded by God in each command which: all men are bound by God to obey, reflects God’s holy character, and applies in various circumstances in each sphere of life. We affirm that obedience to this moral Law is the delight of all who are born again in Christ, those empowered by the Holy Spirit to love God and their neighbors as themselves by doing the good works that God has planned for them.
We affirm that a Christian nation provides cultural conditions conducive to the perpetuation and thriving of the family, the preservation and advancement of the Christian church, the spread of the gospel for salvation by the Church, and the abundance of blessings to the nonbelieving.
WE DENY that the content of the gospel includes obedience to the Law and that any work of obedience merits salvation. We deny that law-keeping contributes in any way to justification before God or declaring the sinner righteous based on anything other than faith in Christ. We deny that the Law can be separated from the love of the personal God who gave the Law. We deny that citizenship in a God-glorifying, Christian nation or anything outside of the above affirmation has any saving power.
Scripture: Isaiah 42:4; Ezekiel 36:27; Habbakuk 2:14; Matthew 5:16; John 3:16, 14:6; Romans 1:16; 5:8-19; 8:16; 1 Corinthians 10:31; 15:24-25; Ephesians 2:8-10; Colossians 1:10; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; Titus 2:7, 14; 3:1, 8, 14; Hebrews 4:15; 10:24; 1 Peter 2:12; 2 Peter 1:8.
Article XVI: On Civil Disobedience
WE AFFIRM that categorical opposition to civil disobedience is idolatry of the State. We affirm that civil disobedience is a proper Christian response to civil dictates which: (1) command what God forbids; (2) forbid what God commands; (3) overstep their jurisdiction; (4) bind the conscience where God alone has jurisdiction; or, (5) have no basis in rationality (a just law is always a rational law). We affirm that lesser magistrates may and sometimes must disobey a lawless higher magistrate to obey God. For example, lesser magistrates–such as State governments, counties, and municipalities–must disregard any order, statute, or ruling from a higher magistrate–such as the Federal government–instructing them to allow abortion. We affirm that civil disobedience, although sometimes necessary, is rarely the normative relationship between a citizen and their civil government.
WE DENY that men’s consciences, homes, churches, or states are bound by legal or moral inventions of men apart from the Word of God. We further deny that civil authorities have the right to coerce or command obedience to the dictates of men apart from God’s Word. Moreover, we deny the authority of rulers to squelch civil disobedience if the free and necessary worship of and obedience to the Triune God is being hindered.
Scripture: Daniel 3; Exodus 1:15-22; Acts 5:29; Exodus 20:2-3; Deuteronomy 24:6; Romans 13:1-4; 1 Peter 2:13-14.
Article XVII: Methodology
WE AFFIRM that the Kingdom of God does not advance by carnal means but by the working of the Spirit in bringing men to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. We affirm that culture affects law and that law also affects culture. We affirm that while political maneuvering and cultural expertise can be good and helpful, God works most powerfully through bold proclamation of His truth by His people. We affirm that God uses means yet is free to work without, above, and against them at His pleasure.
WE DENY that pragmatism should be the driving force behind the decision-making of a Christian movement.
Scripture: Psalm 20:7; 1 John 5:1-5; Acts 27:31, 44; Isa 55:10–11; Hosea 1:7; Romans 4:19–21; Daniel 3:27.
Article XVIII: Just War
WE AFFIRM that war is only to be waged: (1) for a just cause, by a just magistrate, involving the protection of human life from persecution; (2) as a last resort when peaceful methods of conflict resolution have been diligently pursued and exhausted; (3) in pursuit of achievable goals; (4) with the pure motive and intention of establishing peace and justice as quickly as possible; and, (5) by moral means that scrupulously avoid civilian casualties and only inflicts as much violence as is necessary for the achievement of the objective. We affirm that even when a war is just according to the above criteria, nations should be extremely cautious in discerning whether a proposed war is wise, taking every contingency into account. We affirm that many wars throughout history have been waged for sinful purposes, such as greed, revenge, and lust for power and fortune.
WE DENY that war is ever a means by which the gospel, or simply good ideas about government and society, are to be spread. We deny that holy wars are ever morally permissible. We deny that governments may coerce civilian participation in unjust wars.
Scripture: Genesis 1:27; Exodus 22:2; Deuteronomy 20:10; Psalm 144:1; Ecclesiastes 3:8; John 18:3-11, 36; Romans 12:18-21; 13:4; 2 Corinthians 10:4; 1 Peter 2:14.
Article XIX: Imago Dei and Equal Protection
WE AFFIRM that all civil authorities have a duty before God to uphold justice by establishing equal protection under the law for all image-bearers of God from the moment of fertilization, which is conception. We affirm that civil authorities must reject all partiality in judgment by asserting the same legal prohibitions and available sanctions against homicide that exist to protect persons after birth and persons before birth.
WE DENY that any law which classifies abortion as a lesser crime than homicide or which allows any class of humans to murder preborn children with legal immunity is a just law.
Scripture: Exodus 20:13; 22:22-24; 23:2-3; Leviticus 19:15; Deuteronomy 1:16-17; 16:18-20; 24:17; 27:19; Psalm 82:1-4; 94:6; Proverbs 18:5; Isaiah 1:16-17, 23; 10:1-2; Jeremiah 5:28; 7:5-7; 21:12; 22:3; Ezekiel 45:9; Amos 5:15; Matthew 7:12; 22:39; 23:23; Romans 13:9; Galatians 5:14; James 2:8; 3:9.
Article XX: On “Neutrality” and the Separation of Church and State
WE AFFIRM that the Church and the state each possess their own sphere of influence. For example, church officials ought not to write or enforce civil laws in their capacity as church officials, and civil officials ought not to administer church ordinances or dictate doctrine in their capacity as civil officials, even while both spheres are under the absolute authority of Christ.
WE DENY that the separation of authority between the Church and the State means there must be a separation of God and the state. We further deny that there can ever be a separation between religion and state., as everyone possesses views about ultimate reality, purpose, and cause, which inform their morality and preferred policies. We deny the idea that a nation’s laws do not impose morality and religion.
Scripture: Matthew 12:30.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 1, 2023 17:45:49 GMT -5
THE HOLE IN KEVIN DEYOUNG’S HOLINESS
12/01/2023 · BY TOBY
Introduction
I’ve appreciated Kevin DeYoung’s work. He’s taken faithful stands on homosexuality, biblical repentance, and Christian holiness. I attended a regional talk he gave one time and remember being encouraged by it. If I remember correctly it was connected to his book The Hole in our Holiness. And now DeYoung has written a thoughtful engagement with the Moscow Project, specifically trying to answer the question of what he thinks of Douglas Wilson.
Of course, I’m nothing close to an objective, outside observer. I moved to Moscow as a 17 year old punk kid, went to New St. Andrews College, slowly picked my way through Greyfriars Hall, left for two years to go to Erskine Theological Seminary, and then landed back in Moscow pastoring Trinity Reformed Church for ten years before serving alongside Pastor Wilson as an associate pastor for three years and then helping Christ Church launch a new church plant called King’s Cross Church that I continue to pastor. My ties with Pastor Wilson are deep. He still serves as a pro tem elder on my session (and I on his session), and there is only one office between his and mine, occupied by Jared Longshore. And we’re all thick as thieves.
I Have Thoughts
But I have thoughts about DeYoung’s article, and I’m going to share them with the world. But first DeYoung’s conclusion: for all of Doug’s helpful contributions to cultural engagement and the attractiveness of his “angular, muscular, forthright Christianity in an age of compromise,” DeYoung is concerned that Doug’s defiant, militant “mood” is “too often incompatible with Christian virtue, inconsiderate of other Christians, and ultimately inconsistent with the stated aims of Wilson’s Christendom project.”
As I stated on social media when I shared DeYoung’s article, “A good-hearted critique that puts its finger on something very crucial but can’t see the strategic importance and biblical necessity of it. Worth considering, and if you share similar questions or concerns, we have answers.”
And at least a few people asked what I meant. What is the strategic importance and biblical necessity of the “Moscow mood?” First, what is that mood? DeYoung summarizes it quite well: “It’s a mood that says, “We are not giving up, and we are not giving in. We can do better than negotiate the terms of our surrender. The infidels have taken over our Christian laws, our Christian heritage, and our Christian lands, and we are coming to take them back.”
This is quite right, and it is of strategic importance and a biblical necessity. And what do I mean? What is strategic and necessary and why? I mean that the Moscow mood of not giving up, not giving in, and determining to fight for a Christ-honoring culture is strategic and necessary because it is central to a healthy and thriving biblical immune system. Our culture, the Christian West (what is left of it), is in the last gasping hours of a Stage 4 terminal cancer. Secularism has metastasized, and it’s in all our organs and lymph nodes. You can tell because after chopping up millions of unborn babies for more than 50 years, we decided to start chopping off the body parts of our children and chemically castrating them. We are well on our way, as a culture, to making the Aztecs look civilized. We’ve sent groomers into libraries and elementary schools, and we have Christians insisting that this is the cost of a free republic. We have Christians insisting that if we don’t sacrifice to Baal, we won’t get any rain. Some of our most stalwart Christian men cower before the glare of Rachel Denhollender, and only occasionally peer out from behind the skirts of Megan Basham and Rosaria Butterfield.
There are good answers to all of Kevin DeYoung’s concerns, and Joe Rigney has done a marvelous job giving them. But the central point I want to make is not that Moscow is perfect, is not that we have always done everything right (we haven’t), but the central thing is that God in His grace has given us a biblical immune system. We fight sin. We fight wolves. And we fight brothers (and sisters) who are trying to get us to play footsie with the wolves (but enough about Rachel Denhollender). And yes, we’re eager, and we’re joyful about it. We sing Psalms in four part harmonies while we mock the prophets of Baal and the schoolmarm Pharisees of our day, just like Jesus did and all of the faithful prophets.
Not Pugnacious Enough
DeYoung seems to have some appreciation for that sentiment in the abstract, but then when he sees it in action, he’s concerned that it’s too worldly, too pugnacious, and too irreverent. Joe Rigney has already answered the concerns about worldliness, as did Pastor Wilson on CrossPolitic, so I will (mostly) leave that charge to the side. But I can barely think of a more blinkered concern in our day. Sure, we must not be jerks; and the fruit of the Spirit must be vibrant in all that we do and say. But I’m sorry: too pugnacious when the forces of globalistic sexual fascism are surrounding us and gunning for our children? No, if anything, we are not pugnacious enough. We are not fierce enough. And too irreverent? If only we could topple more idols. If only we had more sarcasm for the Goliaths that taunt the armies of the living God. Seems like we have a few dozen giants at this point, and most of Israel is cowering in their tents. When the prophet told the king to strike the earth, he only struck it three times, and DeYoung is concerned about that. He’s concerned about David’s tone with Goliath. But we should be striking the ground five or six times so that the world may know that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead. And I can hear some first year seminary student piping up, “But they will know us by our love, Sumpter!” To which I reply, ‘quite right, and true love fights evil.’
DeYoung objects to Pastor Wilson’s jabs at the ERLC and G3: “This isn’t Wilson using his famous “serrated edge” to make a prophetic point against a godless culture. This is intentionally making fun of other Christians for a quick chuckle.” Actually, DeYoung is simply wrong here. These are exhibits of godless culture seeping (more or less) into Christian circles. As others have pointed out, the ERLC needs to be lampooned out of business, and the fact that DeYoung wants to run interference for them is frankly a bit astonishing. The G3 guys are our friends and doing some good work, but they are far too concerned about their reputation and what internet karens think. When CrossPolitic was invited to do a liveshow at G3 in 2020, and we announced that Doug Wilson would be our guest, the G3 leadership insisted that he not be our guest, or that we only interview him in a back corner of their exhibit hall. But lest anyone think we were offended (we weren’t and had a grand time anyway), we followed that up with an invitation for Josh Buice to be our main speaker at New St. Andrew’s high school worldview summer camp. And major kudos to him, he actually came. But since then, Scott Aniol wasn’t allowed to come hang out with us for our Christian Nationalism liveshow at the Ark Encounter. It might have been too close an association with Ken Ham, but we have our suspicions.
DeYoung claims that “Moscow cannot become the American Redoubt for conservative Christians if it is too similar to other places, with basically the same kinds of churches, schools, and institutions found in hundreds of other cities. Differentiation is key, and this can only be sustained by a mood of antagonism and sharp antithesis.” He’s wrong that we care very much about being “too similar to other places, with basically the same kinds of churches, schools, and institutions.” Heh. That’s actually pretty funny. Pastor Wilson helped start Logos School and the ACCS and the CREC all of which have literally helped start and encourage hundreds of other classical Christian schools and churches that are similar to us (and different).
But DeYoung is correct that we care about a certain kind of differentiation. We care about the kind of emotionally mature differentiation that isn’t bound to the careening feelings of the culture or unstable brothers. This is why we’ve taken so much heat over our rejection of untethered empathy. We do have a strong mood of antagonism to being steered by vague “concerns,” you know, the concerns that one of your friends heard about from their mom who was talking to a friend in another church who heard that someone’s pet chihuahua was offended. We certainly have cultivated a sharp antithesis to the world, the flesh, and the devil. And we want to be the kinds of friends who call one another out. And to be clear, this is the kind of community we have. It is not unusual to raise concerns within our community. It is not unusual for people to have differences of opinion. We have remarkable like-mindedness, remarkable unity, and yet we are self-consciously seeking to cultivate true Christian individuality, and we refuse to be what Edwin Friedman calls “emotionally fused” to everyone around us. But this is true friendship and leadership, true Christian community, with faithful wounds, and we are on record of happily hanging with anyone from G3 to Founders to Desiring God to Kevin DeYoung, with open invitations to a number of our most vehement detractors.
In a similar vein DeYoung sounds the alarm, saying, “Once [Wilson] wrote that a committee was “as stacked as Dolly Parton after her new implants.” There is no excuse for this language. To be sure, the prophet Ezekiel could use extreme language in extreme situations to show the ugliness of extreme wickedness. Likening a study committee of a confessionally Reformed denomination to Dolly Parton’s anatomy is none of these things. It’s juvenile, sensuous, and entirely without biblical warrant. This isn’t using graphic language to highlight the horror of sin; it’s a bawdy way to make fun of a group of orthodox churchmen with whom Wilson disagrees.”
But this is right to the point. DeYoung is correct that if Wilson is merely using graphic language to mock orthodox churchman with whom he disagrees, that would be completely inexcusable. Period. Full stop. And I would join DeYoung at the front of the line if that’s what that was. But click on that link. Read the whole article. That article is not at all juvenile, sensuous, and the full context more than provides the biblical warrant for such a description. The whole point of the article was to point out the mass hypocrisy and travesty of justice being carried out by a PCA presbytery. The whole point is to call into question their orthodoxy. Read the article. Follow the links. He used extreme language in an extreme situation to call out an extreme wickedness.
And remember this: at the very center of our faith is a presbytery meeting that was called to order, a motion made, with an orderly second and no further discussion, passed without objection, and it was all entered into the minutes neat and tidy to crucify the Son of God. The gospel teaches us, if nothing else, that the good guys are sometimes the bad guys. If Jesus could tell the Apostle Peter to get behind Him, “Satan,” then sometimes, faithful men of God will need to tell otherwise faithful men of God to stop acting like the Devil. And if they’re acting like the Devil, sometimes the kindest way to try to wake them up is to mock all the socks they’ve stuffed into their Presbyterian bra.
Conclusion
DeYoung summarizes his concern: “I fear that much of the appeal of Moscow is an appeal to what is worldly in us. As we’ve seen, the mood is often irreverent, rebellious, and full of devil-may-care playground taunts. That doesn’t make us better Christians.” Well, to this I would simply say that DeYoung should spend more time in the prophets. Of course, there is a kind of callousness that is utterly unchristian, but when the Titanic is sinking, this is no time for niceties and platitudes. The PCA has teetered on the edge of embracing REVOICE, barely managing to make it a relatively uncomfortable place for Greg Johnson, and three cheers for all the faithful men who did that. But after a hundred years of losing our denominations, colleges, and seminaries, you’d think some folks might realize that what we’ve been doing hasn’t worked.
DeYoung suggests that Wilson be more like Al Mohler: “He could try to be an evangelical statesman or lean into his role as a seasoned mentor to younger Christians—especially men who don’t need permission to be brawlers, as much as they need a godly role model to emulate and a spiritual father to correct their youthful excesses.” But Al Mohler, for all the wonderful good he has done (and there is a great deal to praise), has not kept the woke virus out of Southern Seminary and he submitted to the worldly zeitgeist of face masks… oh wait, just like DeYoung’s church through September of 2021.
Look, I’m not saying we did COVID perfectly here in Moscow. We closed down worship and went online for three weeks, and we should not have. We conducted drive-in services for another three weeks, and we should not have. We waivered for a moment. But we learned our lesson. Never again. Not like that. Too much is at stake. Pastor Wilson is not the mentor many want, but he is the mentor that we need. He is the godly role model we need to emulate, the spiritual father that has and will correct our youthful excesses. But jolly fighting of sin and worldliness isn’t one of them. We need more of that mood.
At the end of Joshua, when the land was being settled, the nine and half tribes on the other side of the Jordan got wind of an altar being built by Reuben and Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh, and Phinehas and the whole congregation of Israel gathered themselves together at Shiloh and marched to war (Josh. 22:11-12). Of course when they arrived, they found out that the altar was only an altar of witness and not an altar to a false god, and so the nine and a half tribes called off the war and went home satisfied. Surely there were a few editorials in the Israelite Gazette cautioning everyone about Phinehas’s “Warrior Children” and the long term consequences of that pugnacity. And maybe the editorials got to some of them, as the book of Judges seems to suggest.
There’s tons more to the Moscow mood – things like folk dancing, block parties with Psalm singing, football and lacrosse, reading Narnia and Lord of the Rings over and over, Sabbath feasts, making love, and writing poetry – but yes, also this zealous martial spirit. It is strategically significant and biblically necessary for our children and our children’s children, that we might not forget how to war (Jdg. 3:2). It’s not incompatible with Christian virtue; it is one of the necessary Christian virtues. It is not inconsiderate of other Christians; understood rightly, it is the most considerate of Christian virtues. In Book 1 of Edmund Spenser’s Faerie Queene, Saint George is the Red Cross Knight of Holiness. And what he learns through his many adventures and trials is that the life of Christian holiness is one of constant war.
Photo by UX Gun on Unsplash
SHARE THIS:
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 2, 2023 17:00:36 GMT -5
Kevin DeYoung vs Doug Wilson: An Effeminate Critique
Doug Wilson is one of the most controversial figures in Reformed Evangelicalism due to his longstanding prominence and poetic writing style. Most of the criticisms against Doug Wilson are liberal critiques, and Kevin DeYoung’s concerns are not distinct from these. In his article, On Culture War, Doug Wilson, and the Moscow Mood Kevin DeYoung clutches his pearls and thinks of the children, going after Doug Wilson over his way of doing something.
Kevin DeYoung is writing on November 27 to critique Doug Wilson’s flamethrower video and annual “No Quarter November” which is rather late.
I’m convinced the appeal of Moscow is visceral more than intellectual. That’s not meant to be a knock on the smart people in Moscow or attracted to Moscow. It is to say, however, that people are not mainly moving to Idaho because they now understand Revelation 20 in a different way, or because they did a deep word study on ta ethne in the Great Commission, or even because of a well-thought-out political philosophy of Christian Nationalism. Those things matter to Wilson and his followers, but I believe postmillennialism and Christian Nationalism are lagging indicators, not leading indicators. That is, people come to those particular intellectual convictions because they were first attracted to the cultural aesthetic and the political posture that Wilson so skillfully embodies. In short, people are moving to Moscow—whether literally or spiritually—because of a mood. It’s a mood that says, “We are not giving up, and we are not giving in. We can do better than negotiate the terms of our surrender. The infidels have taken over our Christian laws, our Christian heritage, and our Christian lands, and we are coming to take them back.”
DeYoung asserts that Doug Wilson is emblematic of the Christian Nationalist and postmillennial crowd. While the latter may be true, Doug Wilson is lagging in the Christian Nationalism debate, responding to it more than he is instigating it. While his beliefs have long been compatible, Christian Nationalism is not his term, not his movement. Christian Nationalists are generally more theologically conservative than Doug Wilson as evident in his debates with Andrew Isker and Jared Moore. So DeYoung’s read of the room and mood are incorrect. The world of Evangelicalism is much larger than Doug Wilson, despite online perception.
First, it strikes a tone that is deliberately sarcastic and just a little bit naughty. No one really thinks Wilson is timid and cautious the rest of the year. That’s the sarcasm. The naughty part is that Wilson uses the words “wussy” and “wuss”—adolescent slang for someone weak and effeminate. These are words most Christian parents don’t allow their kids to use, since the terms probably originated as a combination of “wimp” and another word I won’t mention.
Here we get a glimpse of Kevin DeYoung’s pearl-clutching argument about words that Christians should not use according to him.
Second, the video takes cheap shots at other Christians. Wilson’s sarcastic bite is not first directed toward the wicked, the hardhearted, or the forces of evil in our world. He takes a swipe at the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and at the G3 Conference. Both are conservative Baptist groups—groups, we might add, that would be on the same side as Wilson in almost every important cultural battle. It’s fine if Wilson wants to disagree with these groups; they’ve disagreed with him at times. But Wilson doesn’t mention them in the video in order to make a serious argument. He uses them for a punchline. If you like Wilson you are supposed to think “Oh no, he didn’t?! That’s hilarious.” And if you like the ERLC or G3, you are supposed to be triggered, because if Moscow can watch their opponents get triggered, that is also funny. When serious criticism is leveled at Moscow, the response often includes a smattering of mockery and memes. This isn’t Wilson using his famous “serrated edge” to make a prophetic point against a godless culture. This is intentionally making fun of other Christians for a quick chuckle.
G3 has been debasing their ministry all year, climaxing at their conference when they let Owen Strachan go woke. More obviously, Kevin DeYoung is defending the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. This organization has fought for gun control, fought equal protection for the unborn, and opposed the release of the Nashville Manifesto. It is a liberal organization and has been a subversive force in Evangelicalism for a long time. Kevin DeYoung is running cover for wolves here.
The well-worn critique of the seeker-sensitive movement is apt for the Moscow mood as well: What you win them with is what you win them to. And with so many of Wilson’s videos and blogs, what he’s winning an audience with is a spirit of derision, cavalier repartee, and the drinking down of liberal tears. Pugnacity and jocularity are not the occasional and unfortunate by-products of the brand; they are the brand.
Even more troubling is Wilson’s deliberate decision to use uncouth (at best) and sinful (at worst) language, especially language of a sexual nature. His own denomination has criticized his unnecessarily provocative language, including the use of phrases like “small breasted biddies” and “lumberjack dykes.” At other times he’s used (without the asterisks I’ve inserted) words like d*ck, c*ck, c*nt, a**, b**bs (also here, here, here, and here), t*ts, b*tch (also here and here), gaytards, fa**ot, fudgepackers [for male sex], and circle jerks . To my knowledge, Wilson has not expressed regret or repentance for this language; to the contrary, he has often defended its use.
Kevin DeYoung argues that the use of these colorful words is unbecoming and ultimately sinful. This is a misreading of Ephesians 4:29 which instructs that our language be fitting for the need of the occasion for the edification of the body that gives way to grace. Such language that Wilson has occasionally used easily fits these parameters. Moreover, Kevin DeYoung believes that Christians should not use derogatory language about homosexuality which has no biblical basis.
Were I to use these words in public (or in private) I would be quickly confronted by my elders and likely brought before my presbytery for questioning. If I persisted, I would probably be deposed as a minister. And rightly so, for such language constitutes filthiness, foolish talk, and crude joking (Eph. 5:4). Which of the Puritans, or Southern Presbyterians for that matter, would have dared to speak this way? What candidate coming forward for ordination could get away with writing in this way? What parent would be thrilled if their daughter’s new boyfriend sprinkled his vocabulary with words like these? If such “prophetic” language is justified for the minister when he is attacking a godless culture, is the language therefore appropriate in the pulpit? According to Wilson’s logic, I don’t see why not. And should we hope to see more pastors employ these terms? Would that be a step toward the saving of Christendom, for Christian ministers to talk more frequently about b**bs and t*ts? In his influential thirteenth-century manual on the training of knights, Ramon Llull insisted that “Courtesy and Chivalry belong together, for baseness and uncouth words are contrary to Chivalry.”
The fact that Kevin DeYoung’s elders and presbytery are more concerned with colorful language that the Bible doesn’t specifically condemn more than they are the fact that DeYoung works for the woke Ligon Duncan or is on the council of The Gospel Coalition is a bigger issue here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 4, 2023 15:13:01 GMT -5
My Rejoinder to Kevin De Young
Posted onMonday, December 4, 2023 by Douglas Wilson
Sharing Options
Show Outline with Links
Introduction
So Kevin De Young set off a national conversation with this article. When his article dropped, I was in the middle of wrapping up my November posts, and so a response had to wait until today. But I did have enough time to tweet that I thought Kevin’s critique was a responsible critique from a reasonable man, and so I asked all those who thought of themselves as being “in my corner” to respond to him judiciously and in that spirit.
As far as I could see, this is something they largely did—but that did not mean that the responses were not pointed, telling and forceful. I am going to try to do the same. I thank Kevin for this opportunity, and look forward to meeting him as a result of all this.
This response is kind of a beast, but what are you going to do?
Our War With Crapola
Below please find the latest promo ad for Canon+. After you watch it, you might wonder if we rushed it through production over the last week in order to respond to Kevin’s piece on the Moscow Mood. But no, it was in the works already, and it summarizes our approach to all these things nicely. We are at war with crapola, and are willing to use words like crapola as the occasion demands.
Here is the video.
Come for the Mood, Stay for the Substance
As the header for this section indicates, I am willing to play with Kevin’s point that some people are being attracted by the mood, and that doctrinal concerns are not really all that front and center. But this is just a rhetorical playing around, because you can’t cover everything in a short little header. So I would also want to note that as I have interacted with many of the people who are attracted to Moscow, I find all sorts of variations on the central theme of “reasons for coming”—”come for the practical teaching, get used to the mood,” or “come for the grand kids, stay for the postmill stuff,” or “come for the community, misunderstand the mood,” “come for a classical education, stay for the worship,” and so on. In other words, I believe that Kevin’s thesis is genuinely a small part of what is going on, but is by no means the whole thing. It is accurate as far as it goes, but that is not very far, and there is a lot more going on. The word I hear mentioned in this regard, overwhelmingly, is community. This is in reference to a blessing we have been given—and do not deserve—and that gift is something the apostle Paul would have called koinonia.
So, sure. Come for the mood, stay for the substance. Come for whatever reason, and stay for the only reason that ultimately matters.
“. . . which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.”
Colossians 2:17 (NKJV)
A Quick Round Up
There were various responses to Kevin’s article from various quarters, and I appreciated a lot of what was said in them. Joe Rigney did a marvelous job in The American Reformer here, Toby Sumpter responded here, and Jared Longshore here. It is an honor to be associated with these men. Here is one, and another, and yet another. There were also some words of real encouragement. And here is another response from someone who had come to Moscow for a visit just a few weeks ago. And Tom Buck, no big fan of Moscow rhetoric, pointed out a glaring inconsistency here. And Michael Foster did some valuable work in pointing that everyone everywhere has a mood, and maybe we should have a discussion about all of them. And Brian Brown knows what time it is. So does William Wolfe, and he applies a crucial insight from John Piper to the whole situation.
Coming from another direction, Justin Taylor promoted Kevin’s article on X, and reinforced some of its main points himself. He also recommended this piece. And as much as I appreciate the proffered explanation for my behavior, this take seems to me to be an exercise in after-the-fact damage control by means of long-distance and entirely unsupported psychoanalysis.
What I think is happening here is that a discussion is ongoing about how best to distance from me, but it can’t look as though it is happening because of heat from the left. Anthony Bradley has complained pointedly about how I have been platformed in the past by Desiring God, The Gospel Coalition, etc., which is true enough, but in order for them to not look like they are caving to pressure, the line has to be that I am the one who has changed. An offered explanation for the dark turn my mind has taken in recent years is that it was Rachel Held Evans “what done me in.” Let me just say that I engaged with Rachel Held Evans quite a bit because of the damaging traction she was getting in the broader church, which shouldn’t have been happening, and because she was really quite easy to answer. But had she had gotten under my skin? Hardly.
So with my jim-jams-diagnosed-from-a-distance out of the way, let us turn to the real subject at hand.
What Kevin Did Well
Kevin offered a critique of our Moscow project, and his critique was far more effective than the standard fare that comes after us. By “standard fare,” I mean the kind of assault that appears to be afflicted with an advanced case of rabies. In other words, Kevin was being a critic, and not someone with a frothing Moscow Derangement Syndrome. In my responses below, I will get into why I believe his criticisms miss the mark—by a mile, actually—but they were in fact real-world criticisms, and not simply spleen-venting. Kevin was obviously trying to be careful, and for this I thank him.
The tell that indicated this, and what made his critique more effective than others I could mention, was the fact that Kevin was willing to give credit where credit was due. He was not attacking us for being sociopaths, or orcs, or Klingons, or pedophile-apologists. He recognized that there is something genuinely attractive about what we are doing, and that it is attractive to reasonable Christians. At the same time, he believes there is a kink in our hose somewhere, and he clearly wanted to warn these reasonable Christians about that. This was on the basis of his belief that something is seriously wrong down underneath all the good stuff.
But he does see, and was willing to talk about, the good stuff.
“I know a lot of good Christians who have been helped by Wilson . . . Wilson is to be commended for establishing an ecosystem of . . . deserves credit for being unafraid to take unpopular positions . . . He offers the world and the church an angular, muscular, forthright Christianity in an age of compromise and defection. On top of that, Wilson has a family that loves him and loves Christ . . . the cultural aesthetic and political posture that Wilson so skillfully embodies.”
KDY, The Article In Question (TAIQ)
And now, because November’s over, I hasten to qualify. I am not saying that Kevin is to be treated as a quality critic simply because he said some complimentary things about me. So long as I get a bit of flattery coming my way, I am somehow willing to flatter in return? No, that’s not it.
I am simply saying, as someone who knows how rhetoric works, that few things are more helpful to us than the unhinged critics are. For any reasonable person who has spent any time here in Moscow, or who knows anything at all about us, it is evident that many remarkable blessings are taking shape here. Kevin sees this, and is willing to say it, which means that he is not blind. And it should always be possible to profit from critics who are not blind.
And at the same time, his concerns are not trifling. They are weighty, and need to be taken seriously, and answered thoroughly. That is what I intend to do here.
I have been answering such questions about mood or “tone” for forty years now, and it is not a new subject for me.
But judging from the fact that Kevin felt the need to address it now in this way, at this level, indicates a mood shift within the rest of evangelicalism. And I believe that this article by Kevin actually presents us with a wonderful opportunity to get some things settled.
Here is the heart of his concern:
“My bigger concern is with the long-term spiritual effects of admiring and imitating the Moscow mood. For the mood that attracts people to Moscow is too often incompatible with Christian virtue, inconsiderate of other Christians, and ultimately inconsistent with the stated aims of Wilson’s Christendom project . . . what you win them with is what you win them to.”
KDY, TAIQ
So that is the charge, and what follows would be the basic answers that I would present in reply.
Short Term, Long Term
What is the short term fruit that Kevin sees?
“He offers the world and the church an angular, muscular, forthright Christianity in an age of compromise and defection. On top of that, Wilson has a family that loves him and loves Christ.”
KDY, TAIQ
But this is the very sort of thing that so many Christian families are hungry for today—a forthright Christian faith that stands against compromise, held out to the world by families that are united in their love for Christ and their love for one another. Isn’t this the very sort of thing that Jesus said to judge by (Matt. 7:20Open in Logos Bible Software (if available))? For Kevin to grant this made his critique much stronger, as I noted above, but only on the surface.
That is because if you take the concession seriously, you realize that it unravels the critique itself. What he conceded seems like a strong upside pitch for Moscow. So what is the downside? The downside is that imitating a mood that is incompatible with Christian virtue could have long term deleterious effects. My question here has to do with that phrase long term. Yes, you can see all this good fruit now, but what about an unspecified future time when that fruit isn’t here anymore? Well, when the good fruit turns bad, you should point that out. But in the meantime, you don’t predict bad things that could happen years from now, and go bury your one talent in a napkin because something could go wrong.
For example, there once was a time when The Gospel Coalition produced a lot more good fruit than they do now, but that was before they fell in love with Taylor Swift. Times change and so should the criticism. Well, and if a time comes when I am no longer presenting a forthright Christian faith in an age of compromise, and my family no longer loves Christ, and no longer loves me, then I would hope that somebody would point that out.
The Worldliness Snare
“I fear that much of the appeal of Moscow is an appeal to what is worldly in us.”
KDY, TAIQ
Hold on a sec. What is worldliness? The thing that drives it is a deep desire for the world’s respect. Does Kevin really think that this is what I have been striving for? That I am trying to get the world to like me? To respect me? The only way people like me ever become respectable is after we’re dead and deep. And if that ever happened, it wouldn’t go to my head because I will be in Heaven and have better things to think about.
“How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?”
John 5:44 (KJV)
So the world only praises Christians within a very limited range, and it is happy to blame us for all manner of. things. If someone has an itch for respectability, that means that they have placed a huge steering wheel on their back, right between their shoulder blades, and the worldly-wise are never hesitant to take the wheel.
The desire to be approved by God puts the standard in the text of Scripture (2 Tim. 2:15Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) ). The desire to be found winsome by the world puts the standard completely in the grasp of Old Slewfoot. He is the one who now determines whether or not you are being winsome. No, no. Scoot farther to the left.
Here is how worldliness is diagnosed in Screwtape.
“No doubt he must very soon realise that his own faith is in direct opposition to the assumptions on which all the conversation of his new friends is based. I don’t think that matters much provided that you can persuade him to postpone any open acknowledgment of the fact, and this, with the aid of shame, pride, modesty and vanity, will be easy to do. As long as the postponement lasts he will be in a false position. He will be silent when he ought to speak, and laugh when he ought to be silent.
The Screwtape Letters, p. 50
In contrast to this, my desire, when confronted by the world’s rebellious and insane folly, is to speak when I ought to speak, and to laugh when they forbid laughter.
There are ways that this can go wrong—because this is a fallen world—but our temptation here in Moscow is not that of caring too much what the respectability-mongers are selling this season. Too many Christian leaders believe that our witness and testimony depends upon buying up the world’s fall line. Next spring it will be the spring line. Our temptations here in Moscow lie elsewhere. I would tell you what those temptations are, but there are people out there who would weaponize it right off the bat.
The temptation to ache for worldly respectability is, however, rampant throughout the evangelical world. Vast sections of our evangelical establishment have gone down before this alluring temptation, like dry meadow grass before a sharpened scythe. This article by Kevin is a marvelous case in point. He is not going to lose any respectability points from the cool kids over this, is he?
The Thumbscrews of Catholicity
“The strategy is not to link arms with other networks, but to punch hard and punch often, all the while forging an unbreakable loyalty to the one who is perceived as the Outsider-Disruptor.”
KDY, TAIQ
Now speaking frankly—which I suppose by this point I need to—this is rich.
I am a fundamentalist, in that I believe the fundamentals with all my heart. But I am not a cultural fundamentalist, and I am not a schismatic or separatist. When I am invited to go speak at a conference, I would not decline because of any intramural doctrinal differences. I am more than happy to go. Not only so, when I am invited somewhere and I actually get to go, I really do behave myself. I conduct myself like a gentleman. If I were invited to the great evangelical banquet (not going to happen, fret not), I would not throw my dinner roll at the server with all the champagne glasses. Neither would I make fun of any of my hosts. For some curious reason, some people have assumed that if I am willing to smite infidelity under the fifth rib, I am therefore willing to do the same to pretty much anybody, including the organizing pastor’s wife in my opening remarks. This assumption makes people jumpy.
But there is more. Sometimes I am invited to speak somewhere, and am then uninvited after the ecumenical thumbscrews are applied to the organizers behind the scenes. Then I don’t get to go. Yes, that happens. It has happened quite a bit, actually. And when we invite a speaker to come here to Moscow, and they accept, if they are anywhere in the Big Eva orbit, we don’t count on it until after they get the treatment. This is because it is quite possible they will withdraw after agreeing to come, the way Karen Swallow Prior did. We have invited multiple people from all over the Reformed evangelical world, and most of them have married a wife and have bought them five yoke of oxen (Luke 14:19-20Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)).
In this vein, Kevin complained about the jab I took at the ERLC and G3.
“He takes a swipe at the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and at the G3 Conference. Both are conservative Baptist groups—groups, we might add, that would be on the same side as Wilson in almost every important cultural battle.”
KDY, TAIQ
With regard to the ERLC, this is simply not true. The increasingly progressive tilt of the ERLC has been a matter of public controversy in the Southern Baptist Convention, and the fact that Kevin is not aware of how far left they have drifted on a number of issues is itself an indicator of how bad the situation has gotten.
G3 really is a conservative group, but one that brings us back to the theme of this section, which is catholicity and “who is actually the standoffish one?” CrossPolitic was invited to participate in a G3 conference a few years ago, but then they were told they could not have me on as a guest on their show while there. I would have been happy to participate, and pleased to associate with G3. It didn’t go the other way. Perhaps Kevin should admonish G3, telling them that Wilson is a conservative, and that he would be on their side in “almost every important cultural battle.” See if that works.
Look. We know all about the pressures that are applied to people to keep them from having anything to do with us. We know. We were there. And please know that this does not hurt our feelings. We long ago learned how to put on our big boy pants. But then . . . for Kevin to come out and say that we are the ones who are being fastidious about who we associate with . . . well, now. Okay, that doesn’t hurt my feelings either. But it probably ought to have.
Kevin really ought to know how willing we are to link arms with people who are outside our native orbit. We have certainly invited him to come work with us enough times. Kevin does good work, and we support it. I have appreciated reading his stuff. We would be willing to work with him despite the fact that there are men with him on the TGC council that we believe to be badly compromised. But if Kevin were ever to accept an invitation from us, do you think that he would get any fierce pressure from them? Just a thought experiment, and we already know the answer. In short, we are not the ones thinking ourselves “better than other folks.”
Balance in Writing
Kevin believes that I am capable of writing stuff that is good and wholesome and balanced, but that for some reason I just don’t want to. He points to what he considers to be the comparatively rare instances where I let my abilities in this line show, as in my kind comments after the death of Rachel Held Evans. Kevin wonders why I couldn’t do more of that kind of thing.
Now here is a novel criticism—someone wanting me to write more stuff. I tell people that I write for the same reason that dogs bark, and usually barking dogs are not encouraged to step it up a bit.
Kevin wonders where he could find a . . .
“month of posts on the loveliness of Christ, or the power of prayer, or the finer points of Reformed soteriology, or the wonders of the cross, or the total trustworthiness of the Bible, or soteriology, or the holiness of God, or the glorious intricacies of trinitarian theology.”
KDY, TAIQ
A little bit later, he had even more suggestions for my “to do” pile.
“Wilson’s online persona is not about introducing Reformed creeds and confessions, or about explaining the books of the Bible, or about global mission to the uttermost parts of the earth, or about liturgy, preaching, prayer, and the ordinary means of grace. I’m sure Wilson cares about all those things . . .”
KDY, TAIQ
Yes, I do care about all those things. But I do more than just care about them. I have written a book on about three quarters of them.
And I really do hate to talk like this, but you have driven me to it, man (2 Cor. 11:16Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). I believe that with just the books that come off the top of my head, I can put this concern to bed pretty quickly: “the power of prayer,” “the finer points of Reformed soteriology,” “the wonders of the cross,” “the total trustworthiness of the Bible,” “soteriology, “introducing Reformed creeds and confessions,” “explaining the books of the Bible,” “global mission to the uttermost parts of the earth,” “liturgy,” and “the glorious intricacies of trinitarian theology” (for this last one, I wrote the draft). And on those remaining topics where there isn’t a book in print yet, the chances are pretty good that there is something in process. Give me a minute, wouldja?
This point that Kevin makes here is what I call the Cave of Adullam phenomenon. Back in the day, we ran a magazine for about twenty years (Credenda/Agenda). It was about forty pages of teaching on family, church life, the civil magistrate, eschatology, and so on. Near the back was one page we called the Cave of Adullam, which was dedicated to skewering what we called the “regnant follies.” We would also occasionally horse around in the masthead, or in an editorial up front, but in the main the bulk of the magazine was clothed and in its right mind. But what would happen is that people would get the magazine, turn immediately to the Cave, read it with a guilty chuckle or two, spend the rest of the evening being harangued by their conscience, and then write us a concerned letter about our writing habits—when they really ought to have been more concerned about their reading habits. This is called reading all the snark, and ignoring the rest. This is called picking all the bacon bits out of the salad, and then complaining about the paucity of greens.
So please note that the point Kevin tried to make here is simply risible. What is the word like risible, but for howlers? Kevin either did not know about all these other emphases—multiple books on marriage, multiple books on children, multiple books on education, multiple books on church life, and down the street and around the corner—in which case he was critiquing a movement he does not understand at all, or he did know about all this voluminous material and chose not to acknowledge it for the sake of scoring a cheap point. And if that is the case, then his critique is disingenuous.
Our tag line, our motto, is “all of Christ for all of life.” It is not “all snark for all of life.” But if Christ is Lord of all, and He is, then He is the Lord of sarcasm. To acknowledge this is to submit to the Bible, and to the proportions set forth in the Bible. It is not to enshrine Sarcasm as Lord. That would be bad.
A Very Short Section
The next section is going to deal with Kevin’s objection to my language at certain points. But before getting to that, I think that a few distinctions are necessary beforehand. I believe we should not muddle up and confuse certain things that are routinely mixed all together, but which shouldn’t be. I do write in a particular way. I think in metaphors, and whenever I open the spigot, what comes out is whatever was in the pipes. But bright yellow metaphors and incarnadine similes are not the same thing as snark. Writing in an interesting way is not the same thing as sarcasm.
It is not that I don’t know how to use the satiric bite, because I do know how, but I am not doing it nearly as often as some people assume.
Cussing and the Tu Quoque
There is an informal fallacy in reasoning which is called the tu quoque fallacy. This is Latin for “oh, yeah? well, you do it too.” But a man who is charged with stealing something cannot defend himself appropriately by saying that his accuser stole something earlier. This is a fallacy of deflection, an attempt to change the subject. If you are a thief, then you are a thief, regardless of whether there are others who are also in the same category.
So Kevin is a council member for The Gospel Coalition. When I point to the standard for language set by the TGC approach to movie reviews, I need to explain how this is not the tu quoque in action. Rather, this is a straightforward inconsistency pointed to in the link to Tom Buck’s tweet linked above. The tu quoque retort happens when it is assumed and acknowledged that both sides are doing the same thing—both stealing, as in the example above.
But my use of hot sauce language is completely different than the use commended by multiple TGC movie reviews. The thing I am accused of, I am not doing, and the thing the accuser attempts to throw at me, the accuser is doing. And so for me to be the one to point that out is not a fallacy of distraction at all.
What this amounts to is a recognition of a basic biblical truth.
“For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.”
Matt. 7:2 (NKJV)
“And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God?”
Romans 2:3 (NKJV)
“Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted.”
Galatians 6:1 (NKJV)
What I believe this point reveals is that the objections to my language has more to do with where that language is aimed than it has to do with the presence or absence of certain words. Kevin, and the men in his circle, do not mind being associated with certain words. They embrace that association. They recommend that Christians go to movies that are filled with it. But they do mind that kind of language being deployed against the sins of the age by a fellow Christian.
Just before writing this paragraph, I went back and reread the famous piece where I used the c-word. I would be willing to write every syllable of it again today, and moreover to defend it as a stand for righteousness—because that is exactly what it was. That article was filled to the brim with arguments, and had one stark word in it. Everyone wants to gasp and point to the word because they think they can score some easy points that way, and they refuse to engage with any of the arguments because they know they can’t engage with them. No one answers the arguments.
And in something of a surprise twist, I find myself in broad agreement with Paul Tripp on this, where such things should be evaluated on the basis of context and intention.
And this is why I would say that Kevin (and Justin Taylor with him) are simply being hypocritical. I am not saying damned hypocrites, like the Pharisees in Matthew 23. But they are being manifestly hypocritical, the way Peter and Barnabas were at Antioch—good men doing a bad thing. They really ought to quit it.
You can support movie reviewers finding “gospel themes” in a secular movie with over a hundred F-bombs in it? But you can’t find gospel themes in a blog post that had overt and hot gospel in it because there was one crude word there? And that one word was aimed at the heart of a particular sin for which the blood of Christ would bring true forgiveness?
What this boils down to is that the camel is all gone, and we still can’t find the gnat.
Just know that in some of my hardest-hitting posts, I have routinely made a point of concluding with a jet fuel gospel presentation. That doesn’t happen by accident. I am a minister of this gospel. And if you can’t find the gospel themes in that kind of direct gospel presentation, but you can find them in a Taylor Swift tour, then something is seriously off.
For those just joining us, this question of language is territory that is well-traversed. My most recent post on this can be found here, and there are a bunch of links in that post that you can follow to get more goodness.
So keep this principle in mind. The apostle Paul said that we were to have our speech be gracious, seasoned with the occasional red hot chili pepper (Col. 4:6Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). In my cooking, over the course of millions of words, I have on occasion put in a red hot one. True enough. I have done this deliberately, seeking to be obedient, mindful of the context, and with great care concerning what kind of dish it is supposed to be. The way I use it, the pepper is not a sin—I am not arguing that it is okay to sin if you only keep the ratios right. Rather, it is not a sin if it is being deployed righteously.
Now what Kevin did (and Justin Taylor after him) was gather up all those peppers, grind them into an asterisk paste, and put them all on one Ritz cracker, to be served to your sainted Aunt Millie in one bite, in the hope that she will be aghast and stop listening to Nancy’s podcast.
That’s not how it is supposed to be done.
Q & A Is Mandatory
Right near the beginning of Kevin’s article, he said this:
“I’m not looking to get into a long, drawn-out debate with Wilson or his followers.”
KDY, TAIQ
I am sorry that I need to explain this, but that is not how this works.
You don’t get to launch a critique like this one, designed to make a lot of good-hearted people think twice about their attraction to the Moscow Mood, and then with a flourish refuse to take questions, or to be too busy for replies. You can’t launch an attack and then call for a cease fire.
This is particularly the case when your critique failed as a knock-out blow. If there were no possible answers, and we defenders of the Moscow Mood were all just sitting around shamefacedly, you could easily afford to take questions, because there wouldn’t be any. But if turns out that this was a swing and a miss, and there are consequently a host of questions, many of which would be very awkward for Kevin to try to answer, you cannot just say that this would “take a lot of time.” Yes, it does. It takes up a lot of our time as well. Why did you start this then?
The reason for starting it is that the Big Eva world is starting to see significant “defections,” and it is concerning them very much. They consider them defections; we just call them reassignments. There are the rank-and-file “defections,” and there are the high-profile “defections” like Jared and Joe. But in this climate, I cannot imagine anyone who was already being drawn to the Moscow Mood being in any way slowed down by Kevin’s piece. The reactions I have seen online bear this out.
We have seen critiques like this before, and the online support we have gotten in the aftermath of this one has been significantly more robust than what usually happens. After Kevin published his piece, and after Justin tweeted in support of it, a crowd naturally gathered. And this time around, the crowd had a lot of trenchant and observant things to say.
On top of all that, a lot of people who would have loved for Kevin’s piece to have been devastating to us have been grumbling about it—the way ardent fans of a football team complain about their own coach after a loss.
So I believe that the questions raised in the pieces I linked to at the top require answers. I believe that the quite reasonable questions I raised throughout the course of this post require answers. Responding in writing would be fine, but I believe that person-to-person, face-to-face, would be far preferable. Uri Brito, presiding minister of the CREC, has offered to broker something like that, and I would be delighted to participate in such an event, or in anything like it. Uri would be a faithful moderator.
But if that seems too lopsided a set-up, I would certainly agree to an event like the Evening of Eschatology, chaired by a moderator of Kevin’s choosing, with me discussing these issues with Kevin and two other men of his persuasion, and also of his choosing. I would be happy to be outnumbered and without any home court advantage. I would show up to the designated venue promptly, and would be happy to go through security. You know . . . those metaphor-detectors. I would wear a clean shirt. And a tie.
And not so incidentally, this last point ties in with the point I made earlier about who is keeping their distance from whom. We are far more willing for association with our brothers than our brothers appear to be. At any rate, there is the invitation, laid honestly on the table, and it is an open invitation.
P.S.
Kevin also commented on a “Clint Eastwood-style closeup of Wilson puffing a massive cigar . . .” That was not a massive cigar. It was a plain old cigar.
In Sum
I am not really trying to make this post any longer. This last section simply contains the major points of my response in summary, one sentence for each major section. Kevin worked hard to be even-handed, but he was so even-handed that he diluted the force of his subsequent critique. Worldliness is a hunger for respectability, which is far more in evidence in Kevin’s circles than in mine. To be isolated, shunned and avoided is not the same thing as being a loner by choice. The people aligned with our movement are the people who appreciate the full breadth of what the movement represents; the people who focus on what they have dubbed my inflammatory “online persona” are the ones who are exhibiting tunnel vision. Colorful writing is not the same thing as cussing. The real objection to the sharpness in my writing has to do with where the spear is aimed, and not the words themselves—there is all sorts of evidence that the words themselves are taken in stride by Kevin and company just so long as they are not targeting the sins of the age. And Kevin now has a moral obligation to engage with us on this subject, and to help us get it all resolved.
I would love that.
CategoriesEngaging the CultureTagsMere ChristendomSatiric Bite
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 7, 2023 11:19:41 GMT -5
Play Audio
By
ANDY NASELLI
Editor’s Note: you may listen to this article read on our podcast here.
David Schrock—along with either Trent Hunter, Brad Green, or Steve Wellum—recently conducted twelve interviews about Christian nationalism for Christ Over All:
Kevin DeYoung: Interview | Transcript
Mark David Hall: Interview | Transcript | Article
John Wilsey: Article | Article Audio | Interview | Transcript
Douglas Wilson: Interview | Transcript
Stephen Wolfe: Interview | Transcript
Andrew Walker: Interview | Transcript
P. Andrew Sandlin and Joe Boot: Interview | Transcript
Tom Ascol: Interview | Transcript
Timon Cline: Interview | Transcript
Scott Aniol: Interview | Transcript
Jonathan Leeman: Interview | Transcript
Albert Mohler: Interview | Transcript
Schrock and friends tried to approach these conversations like Detective Columbo by asking questions such as these:
What is Christian nationalism? How do you define it?
How have others misunderstood or misrepresented your view of Christian nationalism? What would you like to clarify?
What is the church? What is the church’s mission?
What is the state? How do the church and state relate? How do Christ and the state relate?
What is the law of God? How does that apply to nations? Does only the second table of the Decalogue apply? Or both tables?
What is your ideal vision of government? Is it a Christian monarchy? Is it a representative form of government like the American founding? Something else?
How would you advise Christians to respond to government corruption and tyranny?
I copied the transcripts of those twelve interviews into a Word document, and that document is 200 pages single-spaced. That’s a lot to sort through. After listening to the twelve interviews and reading the transcripts, I offer the following twelve reflections or observations.
Reflection 1. The interviewees are basically within views 4 and 5 in my taxonomy of political theology.
In my taxonomy of political theology (article | article audio | interview), here is how I label views 4 and 5:
View 4. Religious Influence: The government should not promote only one particular religion, yet religion may influence the government within limited parameters. (For view 4—in contrast to view 3—the public square is not religiously neutral.)
View 5. Christian Government: The government and religion overlap. (For view 5, religion should not merely influence the government. The government should identify as a Christian government.)
I say, “The interviewees are basically within views 4 and 5” because I am not sure if Stephen Wolfe might fit in view 6. My guess is that he would place himself within view 5.
This is what I expected. When conservative, confessional evangelicals have in-house debates regarding political theology today, for the most part they are somewhere on a spectrum spanning views 4 and 5.
Views 4 and 5 agree on the following:
The government and the church are separate in the sense that they have distinct God-authorized jurisdictions.
The public square cannot be religiously neutral; it is a religious battleground.
The church’s mission is to make disciples. For example, Doug Wilson explains, “Some people are afraid of Christian nationalism being an ecclesiocracy where the clerics or the ministers are running the show as Muslim clerics are functioning in Iran. I don’t think that’d be wise or smart at all. I don’t think that the church has that role. I think the church should simply be preaching the gospel, building people up in their faith, feeding them the Word of God, and expecting them as intelligent Christians, taught Christians, to go figure out what to do in the coding world, and in the bicycle repair world, and in the astrophysics world. That’s all kingdom work.”
Individual Christians should significantly influence the government.
The government should not force citizens to follow Christianity since only the Spirit’s regeneration produces a heart change; the church’s weapon is not the sword but instead the word, prayer, water, bread, and wine.
Reflection 2. The interviewees disagree on whether it would be good to have a Christian government.
The key difference between views 4 and 5 in my taxonomy of political theology is whether it would be good for the government to be a Christian government.
For view 4 (religious influence), the government should neither (1) exclusively promote a particular religion nor (2) restrict the spread of false religious beliefs nor (3) adopt a policy on the basis of Christian beliefs nor (4) institutionalize Christianity.
For view 5 (Christian government), the government may do all those activities. That is, the government may (1) exclusively promote Christianity (but not impose Christianity) and (2) restrict the spread of false religious beliefs and (3) adopt a policy on the basis of Christian beliefs and (4) institutionalize Christianity to some degree. In other words, the government may identify as a Christian government in the sense that the laws and customs it promotes derive from the ultimate authority of God. The government may enforce biblical law appropriate to its God-designed sphere or jurisdiction.
For view 4, it would not be good to have a Christian government. For view 5, it would. Some of the interviewees fit in view 4 (e.g., Mark David Hall, John Wilsey, Andrew Walker, and Jonathan Leeman), some fit in view 5 (e.g., Douglas Wilson, Joe Boot, Andrew Sandlin, Timon Cline, and probably Stephen Wolfe), and some might be more like a 4.5 rather than distinctly one or the other (e.g., Kevin DeYoung, Tom Ascol, and Albert Mohler). For example, Tom Ascol confirmed with me via email that he supports a self-identified Christian government that recognizes its very limited role in strictly religious affairs (like worship and beliefs) and that may adopt public policies and laws based on what God has revealed in the Bible.
Reflection 3. The interviewees agree that America had a Christian founding.
They do not agree that America was a Christian nation, but they do agree that Christian ideas profoundly influenced America’s founders. As Mark David Hall argues, those Christian ideas were “developed within the Christian tradition of political reflection.” That is different from saying that America was founded as a Christian nation, which to Mark David Hall “sounds exclusive, as if it’s a nation founded by and for Christians, where non-Christians will maybe be tolerated, but not much more than that.”
Reflection 4. The interviewees know what time it is.
In the past few years, it has become increasingly common to describe a person like this: “He knows what time it is.” Or, “He doesn’t know what time it is.” The concept of knowing what time it is comes from at least two Scripture passages:
1 Chronicles 12:32a: “Of Issachar, men who had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do ….”
Luke 12:56: [Jesus rebukes the crowds,] “You hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of earth and sky, but why do you not know how to interpret the present time?”
As Doug Ponder explains, our times are antiauthoritarian, sentimental, therapeutic, secular, progressive, licentious, and anti-Christian. In our current context, those who know what time it is recognize that our culture has moved from a positive world for Christianity to a neutral world to a negative world. They recognize that the widespread ideologies of abortion and LBGT and wokeness and Marxism are evil. They are not pretending that the problems are not really there. They are not pretending that the problems are not really that bad.
All the interviewees know what time it is. As Kevin DeYoung says, “Some seismic changes have happened in the last 20 years—at least 50 or 60 years—such that any kind of strong Christian consensus is no longer operative in this country.”
Reflection 5. The interviewees agree that a Christian culture in a society is good.
Kevin DeYoung explains,
When some people say “cultural Christianity,” they may have in their mind nominalism, a Christianity that is just a cultural garb. The danger they’re worried about is hypocrisy, nominalism, dead churches, all of which are concerns in Scripture. So when some people hear the discussion, they’re like, “You want that? I don’t want cultural Christianity. I want vibrant Christianity. I want the real thing. So if that goes, then good riddance.” However, if we’re talking about a Christian culture, and I think that’s what people often mean by cultural Christianity, they’re meaning a culture that has been markedly, demonstrably shaped by Christianity. In my mind, of course we want that.[1]
1. In Kevin DeYoung’s review of Stephen Wolfe’s book, he says, “The best part of the book is Wolfe’s chapter on ‘The Good of Cultural Christianity’ and, in particular, the section on ‘Celebrating Decline.’ Wolfe is right to maintain that while cultural Christianity cannot save sinners (i.e., the message of the gospel is entrusted to the church, not to the civil order), a Christian culture can be both preparative and persuasive in direction of the gospel ([Stephen Wolfe, The Case for Christian Nationalism,] 213). Just because hypocrisy and nominalism are dangers—dangers that ministers should and do warn against—that doesn’t mean we should welcome the collapse of social assumptions and stigmas that pushed people in the direction of biblical truth and basic morality. … I share Wolfe’s bewilderment over the Christian leaders who seem to prefer a society hostile to Christianity. I’ve seen pastors in my own denomination look wistfully at Christians losing power and becoming a minority in the country, as if Constantine ruined everything and our influence would be so much greater if only we could lose power and become more marginalized. It’s one thing to acknowledge cultural Christianity comes with tradeoffs or to recognize cultural Christianity allowed for certain sins to flourish; it’s another thing to say ‘good riddance’ to Bible Belt near-Christianity, as Russell Moore did in a 2015 article that Wolfe quotes at length (224–25). Wolfe notes how Moore rejoices that ‘we don’t have Mayberry anymore, if we ever did’ (226). Traditional family values may have kept some children in intact families. ‘But,’ Moore concludes, ‘that’s hardly revival’ (225). True, not revival, but something worth preserving, if we can?”
None of the interviewees think that it is a net gain for society to move from a Christian culture to a culture that is hostile to Christianity. They agree that a Christian culture in a society is good.
Reflection 6. The interviewees basically agree on the strategy of what faithful Christians should do right now.
Of course, they don’t agree on all the details of political theology and what that entails for the most wise political strategy right now. But they agree on the most fundamental applications—basic principles like the following:
Be a godly man or woman. Trust and obey God.
Be a faithful husband or wife.
Be a faithful father or mother by bringing up your children with a Christian enculturation.
Be a faithful church member. Work together with your church to make disciples locally and globally.
Be diligent and outstanding at your vocation.
Proclaim the gospel in your spheres of influence.
Be the salt of the earth and the light of the world.
Scott Aniol puts it this way:
We ultimately all want the same thing. The question is, how do we get there? We all want a Christian prince, right? [That is, Jesus Christ.] We all want a perfect world and a perfect theonomy and all of that. But the question is, what have we been commanded to do? What has Christ promised will happen? So, at the end of the day if we can all agree on boldly proclaiming the gospel and faithfully living in any ways that we can in society, that’s great. And that’s why I really did enjoy dialogue with a guy like Doug Wilson who has a long view, and I think what we both think we ought to be doing right now is pretty much the same—church planting, faithful proclamation of the gospel, faithful worship, rearing godly kids, working hard on our vocations. If that’s what we ought to be doing right now, sign me up.
Albert Mohler puts it like this:
The first responsibility of the church is the preaching of the word of God, and the obedience of Christ’s people in all that Christ commanded. And that includes honoring marriage, honoring the family, raising our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and obeying Christ in all things from the Great Commission to the entirety of the biblical commands given to us. So that’s the Christian responsibility. I think the Christian citizen responsibility, out of love of God and love of neighbor and obedience to Christ, is to seek to influence the society in the most honorable and truth-centered and God-honoring way to the limits of what is politically possible in any generation, and to seek to make it even more possible in generations to come.
Reflection 7. The interviewees disagree on how to talk about the Ten Commandments with reference to political theology.
There are at least four positions:
Position 1. Christians should not tie their view on the Ten Commandments tightly to their political theology. This is a minority position within view 4 in my taxonomy on political theology. Andrew Walker states, “I would not say that we base our understanding of the natural law on the Decalogue. I think we need to go prior to that, to the covenant of creation.”
Position 2. The government should enforce only the second table; the government should not enforce the first table. Most proponents of view 4 in my taxonomy hold this view. Scott Aniol explains,
Ultimately, someone will not obey the second table [commandments five through ten] without also obeying the first table [commandments one through four]. That is true. But the answer then is not a sort of external enforcement of the first table. The answer is the government has to externally enforce the second just to preserve peace and order. We want to get people to submit themselves voluntarily to the lordship of Christ—that is the first table—so that they will consistently live out the second table.
Jonathan Leeman shares this view but qualifies that it is helpful as a shorthand:
Sometimes people use shorthand to say, “Well, I think the government’s called to enforce second table instead of first table,” just because one [i.e., the second table] gets it horizontal—neighbor-to-neighbor—and one [i.e., the first table] gets it vertical—us to God. And as a very quick shorthand for where government jurisdiction lies, okay. But as soon as you push into the details of that, yeah, that starts to break down because, as you say, first of all, the whole Ten Commandments are given to Israel. Look at the first few verses of Exodus 20. “I brought you out of Egypt.” But it doesn’t even quite work with the second table, does it? Think about the law against coveting. We’re getting to certain heart matters there. How do you restrict coveting? I’m not sure how you do that. And Jesus himself then takes the second table and says, “Look, even if you hate your brother or lust against another woman, you’ve broken that.” Okay, so in Jesus’s interpretation of the second table, are we going to enforce that as well against lust and against hate? So yeah, I think you need to be very careful before you say first table, second table. Though I understand in shorthanded fashion why it’s sometimes useful to speak that way.
Position 3. The government should acknowledge the first table and enforce the second table. This position is saying a bit more than the previous position; it seems to fall between views 4 and 5 in my taxonomy. Albert Mohler states, “I don’t believe that western civilization can endure without acknowledging the first table of the law and obeying the second table. … I think our society, historically and in the present and in the future, should and must acknowledge the first table of the law. And that should be a matter of constitutional importance.”
Position 4. The government should enforce both the first and second tables of the law. In other words, the government should pursue justice by promoting the natural law (which the Ten Commandments summarize) as much as prudently possible. Proponents of view 5 in my taxonomy hold this position. Timon Cline says that it is fair to say that he supports “establishing Christian laws of morality” from both the first and second tables of the law. Doug Wilson explains, “Together with Stephen Wolfe and others, I do believe in the continuing validity of the first table of the law. If someone says, ‘Do you want to see blasphemy eradicated? Do you want to see limitations on blasphemy and restrictions on blasphemy?’ Yes I do very much, and I do think that should be something that is done constitutionally and via the law.”
Reflection 8. The interviewees disagree on how to define “good” and “bad” in Romans 13:3.
Romans 13:3 says, “Rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval.” What do the words “good” and “bad” refer to in Romans 13:3? The interviewees hold two basic positions:
Position 1. The words “good” and “bad” in Romans 13:3 refer to civic good and bad. (John Piper argues elsewhere that “good” refers to “civic good deeds that were widely respected by non-Christians.”) Jonathan Leeman explains,
Blasphemy is, for instance—idolatry is punishable by death in Israel, but not among the nations. You never see that. So by the time you get to the New Testament, and you say, “Punish the evil and reward the good,” you have to understand that within a certain context, right? So, in the same way, let’s suppose I walk into a classroom and I say to the teacher, “Okay, reward the good kids. Punish the bad kids.” You understand that in the context of a classroom that there are certain goods and certain bads that teachers are going to reward and punish. A commercial airline pilot is going to say, “Wear your seat belts, and put your tray tables away.” He’s going to have a certain set of rules—certain goods and bads that he’s going to enforce by virtue of his context. A pastor, a mother—the context to some extent is going to determine the jurisdiction of goods and bads. So when Peter says and Paul says, “Reward the good, punish the bad,” there’s a certain context in mind, a civil context, that you have to look at the whole storyline of scripture to say, “Okay, what is that?” It’s not all goods, all bads. That’s God. God does all goods, all bads. Not government. So yeah, that requires us to pay attention to the storyline of Scripture as a whole to determine what goods, what bads government is to enforce.
Similarly, Scott Aniol explains,
God has ordained the state to maintain peace and order in the civil realm. So if you want to talk about, for instance, the enforcement of the law of God, I would say, yes, the state has been tasked with issues related to what we sometimes would refer to as the second table of the law, right? Interaction between citizens. So certainly, the preserving of human life; capital punishment, the punishment of those who murder; those sorts of relationships. I even see that in Romans chapter 13 where God is instituting human government for the common good of the people in order to punish wrongdoing and encourage good. But the context there in the very next verses right after that in Romans chapter 13—the specific kinds of things that Paul mentions are those second table sorts of issues, right? Relationship between neighbors. … The good that is mentioned in Romans chapter 13 is particularly in that context and then, in a broader biblical theology, the civic good of the people. But certainly not a redemptive or an eternal good that the state is tasked with.
Position 2. The words “good” and “bad” in Romans 13:3 refer to what God says is good and bad (cf. Romans 13:8–10, which adds, “and any other commandment” and thus includes more than the second table). While interviewing Joe Boot and Andrew Sandlin, Brad Green says (apparently to their approval—they don’t disagree),
Even though if I’m a Baptist and Joe and Andrew are not, I think all three of us would agree that we’re in this for the long haul and all of us want Christian individuals, Christian churches; we want our families to confess the lordship of Christ, and we believe that Romans 13—the civil magistrate—they are servants of God; they are ministers of God; they’re even avengers of God’s wrath. They are going to do that in accord with some standard, so it would be odd if the one thing we cannot look to would be God’s revelation, right? That would be an odd place to be in.
Reflection 9. The interviewees disagree on whether the label “Christian nationalism” is helpful.
All of the interviewees recognize that non-Christians—especially the media—would label any Christian within views 4 and 5 as a “Christian nationalist.” Albert Mohler explains,
In one sense, this is a very clever packaging just to try to scare people by putting together the words Christian and nationalism as if that’s some threat to our constitutional form of government, which is, I think, exactly contrary to the truth. I think it’s the foundational worldview that makes our constitutional system of government, indeed our entire civilizational system, possible. … These days, all you have to do is believe that marriage is to be the union of a man and a woman—all you have to do is believe that there’s a man and a woman—and you are going to be called a Christian nationalist in this society. If you believe that a man’s a man, a woman’s a woman, and that there’s an ontological status to the word boy and an ontological status to the word girl, then you’re an outlaw.
Not all of the interviewees, however, would use the label “Christian nationalist” to describe themselves. Most—such as Mark David Hall—do not prefer it because they think it is misleading and unhelpful. Joe Boot, for example, explains, “I’m not especially comfortable with that designation because of the cultural freight that comes with it.” Andrew Walker prefers the labels “Christian democracy” or “civic theism,” but he recognizes that he has a lot in common with many who call themselves Christian nationalists:
Rather than setting ourselves against each other and lighting each other on fire, we should understand that we all stand opposed to abortion. We all stand opposed to Obergefell. We’re really talking about the mechanisms or the vehicles to accomplish that desired goal that we all have, which is the re-Christianization of the world, but particularly in our context, Western order itself.
Three of the interviewees are happy to use the label Christian nationalism: Doug Wilson, Stephen Wolfe, and Timon Cline. Doug Wilson explains what Christian nationalism is and why he is happy to use the label:
To the person who’s appealing to the mistreatment of Baptists and saying, “We can’t do what you’re saying,” I would say, “Okay, friend, when they flogged that Baptist, did that make Jesus happy or unhappy? Was Jesus pleased with their behavior or displeased with their behavior?” Now, they’re going to, of course, say he was displeased. And I would say, “Okay, so shouldn’t we then conform our behavior to please Christ instead of displeasing him?” They would say, “Yes,” and I would say, “Welcome to Christian nationalism.” That’s all I want to do. Basically, I think we should stop making God angry with us. … Christian nationalism—basically at some level, you’re going to be called what your adversary calls you. And basically, I thought “Christian nationalism” was a big improvement over “white supremacist”—the “Theofascist, Christofascist white supremacist.” Basically, “Christian nationalism” is something I can work with. I’m a citizen of this nation, and I’m a Christian. Okay, I can work with that. And I can explain it and defend it in under three minutes, right? It doesn’t take a book to explain it. … I would prefer “Christian republicanism.” But then you’ve got the confusion over whether you’re talking about the political party. There’s always something.
Reflection 10. The interviewees who fit within view 5 do not put most of the load-bearing weight for their view on postmillennialism or theonomy.
Doug Wilson is a well-known proponent of postmillennialism, but postmillennialism is not the driving force behind his political theology. He acknowledges, “[It] does play a role, but I don’t think it’s the driving force. The driving force is the question ‘Can human societies govern themselves without reference to the transcendent?’ And I believe the returns on that question are clearly in: Secularism doesn’t work.”
The driving force of view 5 is not postmillennialism, nor is it theonomy. Stephen Wolfe explains, “I’m not a theonomist. I’ve been called a theonomist by everyone, but I’m not. I’m just classical Protestant in my understanding of civil law.” Wolfe also says in his interview that he is not a postmillennialist. (Timon Cline is postmillennial but not a theonomist.)
Reflection 11. The interviewees disagree on whether some nations (other than Israel under the Mosaic covenant) may be in a covenant with God.
There are two basic positions:
Position 1. Nations may be in a covenant with God. Doug Wilson explains,
I believe that in the Anglosphere we are in covenant with God at a national level. And I think specifically the covenant is the Solemn League and Covenant. So the Solemn League and Covenant bound Scotland, England, and Ireland in perpetuity. The covenant was made in perpetuity. Not only that, but in the restoration when Charles II was brought back after Cromwell, one of the terms of him having the throne restored to him was that he had to subscribe to the Solemn League and Covenant again—which, of course, he disregarded and disobeyed, but that’s what he subscribed to. So I would say that the United Kingdom and then the Commonwealth—Canada, Australia, and places like that—are still under a covenantal obligation to God. And I would say America, by an oblique argument, still is under a covenantal obligation because our colonies that formed our nation were under that. So I believe that when we repent nationally, we’re not coming in as pristine pagans to be converted. We’re not in that position. We’re a divorced person coming back home.
Joe Boot argues,
Biblical nationhood is actually about fundamentally religious commitment to God. England had its Solemn League and Covenant with God that even Charles II ratified where parliament committed itself to the law and gospel. The president of the United States still takes his oath of office on the Bible, [formerly] opened to Deuteronomy 27 and 28. And America, of all nations, a nation of immigrants, should know that nationhood is not founded on blood and soil. It’s founded on a shared religious commitment. England became a nation fundamentally because of Alfred the Great and the beginning of English law and its commitment to the Ten Commandments. … What constitutes any tribes as a nation, as we saw in the founding of England, is covenantal religious commitment.
David Schrock summarizes Boot’s view (to which Boot replies, “Well summarized”) like this:
What you’re saying there is it’s not a divine covenant the way that the covenant with Abraham was, or the new covenant, let’s say. But, in light of the revelation that is given in God’s word, and the covenantal structures that are there, it’s the people who are respecting that, gaining wisdom from that, and then building a nation in a covenantal framework, analogously to what we find in the Scriptures.
Position 2. Nations may not be in a covenant with God. Andrew Walker says,
As I look at scripture, I see no theological warrant for treating the apparatus of government itself as a mediator of that redemptive covenant. It’s creaturely, it’s temporal, and it’s meant to accomplish proximate justice in this age. And again, I think that individuals can have real knowledge of morality, but that does not make them Christian.
Reflection 12. The interviewees all interacted as Christian gentlemen and modeled how to discuss political theology.
When people debate an issue in our day, style tends to matter more than substance. I think that’s a shame because substance matters more. For example, imagine that two people are debating whether Jesus is God. The first person argues that Jesus is not God, and he does so in a charming, sophisticated, and elegant way (like an NPR opinionater or a witty professor with a British accent). The second person argues that Jesus is God, and he does so in an arrogant and rude way (and with a Southern accent that pronounces one-syllable words with two syllables). The winning position should be based on the content, not the manner in which people presented the content. But at the same time, the way we argue is important. It does not please God to present the right position in a sinful way. It’s also foolish and counterproductive.
When evangelicals today discuss Christian nationalism, many are tempted to sound winsome and respectable to the left. The interviewees are not like that when they interact with David Schrock and friends. They interact as Christian gentlemen, and they model how we should discuss political theology. Each one shares what he thinks without being a jerk about it. Each one recognizes that the enemy is the world, the flesh, and the devil—not fellow brothers who are on a slightly different part of the spectrum of views 4 and 5. That is refreshing.
A big reason that these twelve interviews are so edifying is David Schrock and his team at Christ Over All. Hats off to them for how they planned and conducted these informative and constructive interviews. (They suggested I delete those affirming words to avoid publishing what may sound self-congratulatory, but I prefer to keep them because it is good to show honor to whom honor is due.)
Conclusion
Christ Over All has helped move the ball down the field on the controversial topic of political theology, but of course, this isn’t the final word. As we continue to discuss political theology, let’s do it with the right disposition and in the right proportion. And as we do that, let’s focus on Christian fundamentals with God’s help (as I share in Reflection 6 above):
Be a godly man or woman. Trust and obey God.
Be a faithful husband or wife.
Be a faithful father or mother by bringing up your children with a Christian enculturation.
Be a faithful church member. Work together with your church to make disciples locally and globally.
Be diligent and outstanding at your vocation.
Proclaim the gospel in your spheres of influence.
Be the salt of the earth and the light of the world.
†
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Andy Naselli
Andy Naselli
Andrew David Naselli (PhD, Bob Jones University; PhD, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) is professor of systematic theology and New Testament at Bethlehem College & Seminary in Minneapolis and one of the pastors of The North Church.
|
|
|
|
Post by martinmarprelate on Dec 7, 2023 19:00:10 GMT -5
I really don't get this Christian Nationalism.
When Paul says, 'Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities', he is thinking of the pagan Roman authorities. He goes on to say, 'For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God' (Romans 13:1). Even bad governments are appointed by God. If anyone thinks he would be better off without a government, he should try living in Libya or Somalia. I don't see anything in the Bible that tells us to try and take over power, whether by lawful or unlawful means.
We in the west have the benefit of living in democratic nations, which means that our leaders have to take note of what we say. It is clearly their view (in Britain, anyway) that there are more votes in placating the homosexual lobby and the pro-abortion lobby than in placating Christians. To change that is simple - we have to get out there and preach the Gospel. That way, God willing, we make more Christians and the government will take more notice of us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 7, 2023 23:34:29 GMT -5
Hello MM, The way I understand this is many have considered Paul in Romans 13, but see that the gospel is going worldwide. They see the decline and over reach of the secular state. In the USA we have seen sodomites, lgbqt and other perverted persons seeking to impose perversion on society. The last straw has been a thing called drag queen story hour, were perverts and deviants attempt to read perverted books to elementary school children.
Many are saying....enough.
So why we look to fulfill mt.28:18-20....they suggest a more visible presence in the public sphere. Laws to protect families, and true worship.
|
|
|
|
Post by martinmarprelate on Dec 9, 2023 18:50:07 GMT -5
I well understand what you are saying; we have many of the same problems in Britain, including the drag queens in some areas. But it seems to me, from my side of the Pond, that part of the reason why many people in the USA have turned away from Christianity is that it has become connected with one political party, and indeed, with one man, and many people are turned off by this. At my church we never discuss party politics, but we do encourage our congregation to write to their member of Parliament protesting sinful and unjust laws and advocating godly and righteous ones. Laws to protect families will come about when politicians decide that there are more votes in righteousness than in sinfulness. You cannot force Christianity on an unwilling people. This was tried under Cromwell back in the 17th Century, when theatres were closed and the celebration of Christmas was abolished. When Cromwell died, the people couldn't wait to get a king back and return to sinful living. the result was a time of terrible decline for true Christianity and godliness, starting from around 1662 until the Great Awakening in 1738. You might be interested in these posts that I made on my blog some years ago: marprelate.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/learning-the-lessons-of-history-1/marprelate.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/learning-the-lessons-of-history-2/ |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 3, 2024 15:47:08 GMT -5
Christian Nationalism and Blasphemy Laws
Blasphemy laws regulate every society. It just depends on what a nation considers sacred and profane.
Written by Larry Ball | Thursday, October 12, 2023
I believe that Christians need to be busy in restoring the dominance of the Christian faith in the public square beginning with the preaching of the gospel that captures not only the hearts of the people but the institutions that permeate our nation…. My point is that most arguments against blasphemy laws in America are bogus. There is no need to get all distraught about their existence. Blasphemy laws regulate every society. It just depends on what a nation considers sacred and profane.
I have made it known publicly that I am not a fan of the term “Christian Nationalism” (see Christian Nationalism” Dump the Term While We Still Can). I believe that the term “nationalism” evokes an association with Hitler’s Nazi Nationalism or Mussolini’s Fascist Nationalism. This expression has not been helpful in the debate over the relationship between the State and the Christian Faith. I think the tumultuous discussion over the use of this term in the past year has proven me correct. I prefer the term Christendom or Christian Nation. I do believe that the United States was once a Christian Nation, but now it is not.
I believe that Christians need to be busy in restoring the dominance of the Christian faith in the public square beginning with the preaching of the gospel that captures not only the hearts of the people but the institutions that permeate our nation. We need to make America Christian again. I believe in the restoration of the law of God as revealed in the Ten Commandments as the standard for justice and equity in our country, and I believe that this includes the first table of the Ten Commandments.
I remember the days when businesses were closed on Sunday, otherwise termed the Christian Sabbath. This was mandated by Blue Laws. They were called blue laws because the original laws in New Haven, Connecticut, were written on blue paper. I remember when there were no Muslim mosques within our national boundaries.
Whether one uses the term Christian Nationalism or Christian Nation, one of the issues that inevitably arises in any discussion of this issue is the legitimacy of blasphemy laws. For some reason, this term creates every type of negative reaction from the fear of creating a pope in America to the phobia of creating some type of tyrannical Prince ruling the Federal Government. People get all bent out of shape. It is considered a threat to freedom of speech. We are told that it goes against the Constitution and therefore is un-American.
However, blasphemy laws are inevitable. Whether a law is written on paper or is simply a social norm makes little difference. And as laws, they are enforceable. Blasphemy is exacting a penalty for verbal or written speech that disparages something considered sacred in a particular group or society. It all depends on what a group or society considers as being sacred. Ultimately, it depends on the dominant religion of that group or society.
Those of us raised in a previous Christian generation remember blasphemy laws quite well. First, in the home there were usually unwritten blasphemy laws. If a vulgar word came out of my mouth in my home, then my mother would threaten to wash my mouth out with soap. I have watched a mother do this, literally! Freedom of speech was not an absolute right in my home.
Blasphemy laws were enforced in our local community. If a group of men and women were together in a social context, and a man used a curse word with God’s name, then the other men present (who were not even professing Christians) would either verbally or non-verbally condemn the bad language because we were in the presence of women. The perpetrator of vulgarity was sent a message that he needed to refrain from speaking such language. He got the point quickly and the matter ended there. Blasphemy was not permitted.
In 1879 a Maryland law (Article 72, Sect. 189) stated that “If any person, by writing or speaking, shall blaspheme or curse God, or shall write or utter any profane words of and concerning our Savior, Jesus Christ, or of and concerning the Trinity, or any of the persons thereof, he shall, on conviction, be fined not more than one hundred dollars, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both fined and imprisoned as aforesaid, at the discretion of the court.” In 1836 Abner Kneeland was jailed for breaking the state’s blasphemy laws in the State of Massachusetts.
Today, blasphemy laws still exist but they have changed because the dominant religion of America has changed. There are some words that cannot be used without paying a penalty for your speech. Using an incorrect pronoun for a transgender person is now considered blasphemy. In Canada in 2021, Robert Hoogland surrendered himself to the court after a warrant was issued for his arrest by the attorney general of British Columbia. His crime was calling his daughter, a biological female, by female pronouns, and refusing to affirm her medical transition to become a trans male.
In 2020, if medical physicians made disparaging remarks about the covid vaccine, then they could be deplatformed from social media or fired from their jobs. They were considered guilty of disinformation. To disagree publicly with a governmental agency simply was not allowed. Statism was the new national religion, and any deviation from the pronouncement of the sacred state was blasphemy.
The old arguments for freedom of speech based on the U.S. Constitution made sense when America was a Christian nation. All free speech has limits and the Christian Faith provided those boundaries. We as a people agreed on what was sacred and what was not. Since we are no longer a Christian nation, these old freedom of speech arguments based on 1950 civic courses (Eisenhower era) are no longer useful. When the sacred becomes profane and the profane becomes sacred the blasphemy laws change. They never disappear.
My point is that most arguments against blasphemy laws in America are bogus. There is no need to get all distraught about their existence. Blasphemy laws regulate every society. It just depends on what a nation considers sacred and profane.
Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.
Related Posts:
Dobbs Defeated
“The Shadowy Nature of Theonomy”? A Reply to Batzig
Nigeria is the Deadliest Country for Christians
Have Christians Invented a "God of the Gaps"?
The Passion of God’s Propitiation: How the Cross…
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 3, 2024 15:48:12 GMT -5
What Is Christian Nationalism?
Re-establishing a Christian nation in any meaningful sense seems a gargantuan task.
Written by Mike Sabo | Wednesday, November 1, 2023
One major reason for optimism in the Christian nationalist fold is that they have evidently learned from the failures of the conservative movement and are working on developing a positive program, not merely a defensive strategy. And they have a convincing, historically-based case that highlights the deep imprint of America’s Protestant character that remains even today, however trampled upon and bruised.
The subject of Christian nationalism generates little light but much heat.
Since at least the publication of Michelle Goldberg’s Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in 2006, the ruling class has used the term as a club to bludgeon evangelicals—especially in the wake of their prodigious support for Donald Trump in the 2016 and 2020 elections.
Christian nationalists, the mainstream press tells us, are racist, QAnon-addled election deniers. They want to Make America Puritan Again (in the modern, badly misunderstood meaning of that word). And they believe that the Constitution should be set aside for a Christian divine-right king who will oversee forced religious conversions and impose draconian moral codes upon an unwilling populous.
The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin has called Christian nationalism “an authoritarian, racist, dogmatic message donning the cloak of Christianity,” asserting that the GOP is “dedicated to imposing White Christian nationalism” on the country. A coterie of chin-stroking panels hosted by D.C. think tanks, “democracy” experts and sociologists, and (former) Republican members of Congress have condemned it in the strongest possible terms.
Evangelicals who aspire to be accepted by the ruling elite make a point of agreeing in full with the received view. Christianity Today editor-in-chief Russell Moore described Christian nationalism as “liberation theology for white people.” David French, who never misses the chance to steamroll his fellow evangelicals in the New York Times, called it “a blueprint for corruption, brutality, and oppression.”
The riot at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 has been packaged as the perfect showcase of Christian nationalism’s devastating consequences for America. All Americans are required to say that Christian Trump supporters tried to overturn “our sacred democracy” and made an idol of Trumpism at the expense of their eternal souls. (Ethics Professor Daniel Strand has conclusively shown that critics flew to this ready-made narrative before any evidence was presented.)
Mainstream conservatives, for their part, generally argue that liberals indiscriminately and unfairly employ the label against all conservatives, who are for the most part not Christian nationalists but patriotic Americans. However, as that contrast implies, this defense of conservatism takes for granted that the ruling class portrait is an accurate one: Christian nationalism stamps out religious freedom and coerces people into false belief. As Hillsdale College’s D.G. Hart wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that was published close to Independence Day, Christian nationalists long to return the nation to “pre-1776 patterns of government, such as John Calvin’s Geneva or John Winthrop’s Boston,” where “the civil magistrate supported churches and cajoled citizens to practice faith.” Conservatives like Hart worry that Christian nationalists will drag us back, Handmaid’s Tale-style, to a benighted age that we worked very hard to leave behind.
Both the Left and a good portion of the Right then agree that Christian nationalism ought to be rejected by all good and decent Americans. But does it truly represent the ultimate threat to the American republic? Is it the dying gasp of a hidebound folk religion that signifies the closing stage of a less-refined epoch? Is this how Christian nationalists understand themselves?
While the Claremont Institute takes no institutional position on the question, we must take Christian nationalism seriously. The debate over it represents a new stage in the ongoing realignment of our politics and culture, touching directly on how Americans should regard and relate to ultimate questions of the human soul and the highest good. The rise of Christian nationalism, along with post-liberalism, Catholic integralism, and other overlapping yet distinct attempts to answer the deepest theological-political questions facing our nation, speaks to mounting levels of dissatisfaction with our current failing paradigm. Wishing away this obvious reality and holding fast to the dead consensus will only fuel greater levels of discontent with the status quo and heighten the chances of our nation’s disintegration.
Just as President Trump’s first presidential run offered the opportunity for a searching reconsideration of the post-Cold War political consensus, the rise of Christian nationalism likewise offers us the same opportunity in the realm of church and state.
Who Are You?
Critics like to suggest that the leaders of the Christian nationalist movement are universally members of an outlandish coalition: explicit pro-MAGA churches; pastors who hold star-spangled, “patriotic” services; Charismatic snake handlers; prosperity Gospel grifters; and Donald Trump’s less-than-orthodox circle of evangelists. Though these groups publicly promote a certain strain of Christianity, they are not supplying the leading theological and political arguments for Christian nationalism (even though they may reside somewhere in the fold).
Rather, the group leading the Christian nationalist movement is a small pan-Protestant coalition of Christians from multiple denominations (e.g., Presbyterians, Baptists, and Anglicans) who want to restore the political theology of the Magisterial Reformers. Works in this tradition include Martin Bucer’s De Regno Christi, Theodore Beza’s The Right of Magistrates, and Samuel Rutherford’s Lex Rex. And pivotal Protestant confessions that inculcate such views are the original Westminster Confession of Faith, the Belgic Confession, the Irish Articles, and the Thirty-Nine Articles.
The arguments that buttress this project are limited to a few books—with just one systematic treatment among them so far, Stephen Wolfe’s The Case for Christian Nationalism—a number of lengthy essays (some of whose authors do not even call themselves Christian nationalists), and assorted private group chats. There are no foundations or nonprofits solely dedicated to advancing Christian nationalism. Very few institutions would dare publish anything sympathetic with its aims.
Christian nationalists see themselves as leading a counterrevolution against the post-World War II order. In a bracing series of aphorisms in his book’s epilogue, Wolfe describes the Left as the managers of New America who have long since discarded the founders’ Constitution. They have captured virtually every major public institution and are working zealously to stamp out any vestige of Old America, with its heroes, traditions, and ways of life. The inheritance our forefathers left us has been rejected in favor of a toxic cocktail of oligarchy, feminism, transgenderism, and wokeism. Even the U.S. military, once thought unassailable, is in service to the Global American Empire—an online moniker given to America’s imperial project of exporting “universal principles” (in truth particularist claims that benefit certain “dispossessed classes”) to foreign lands. All told, Wolfe asserts, “Americans live under an implicit occupation; the American ruling class is the occupying force.”
Christian nationalists see the suppression of traditional Christian teachings and practices in public as a defining element of this occupation. This includes: a series of disastrous Supreme Court rulings on the First Amendment’s religion clauses; hoary clichés such as the “neutral” public square and the supposedly impregnable “wall of separation” between church and state; and “religious liberty” that allows Christian business owners to be sued into oblivion. As Kurt Hofer has noted at The American Mind, Christians “have accepted the terms of battle dictated to us by liberalism—we have, in effect, already conceded defeat.”
The pushback to our current regime has either been completely ineffective or nonexistent. The modern conservative movement’s often facile and uncritical embrace of open markets, open trade, and (in many cases) open borders has helped strip mine America of its once plentiful resources and contributed to our present disorders. Meanwhile, Wolfe argues that a group of Protestant regime theologians have been busy reconciling evangelicals to their dhimmitude status, ensuring that they will never pose a threat to unraveling the 21st-century moral consensus.
Longhouse Nation
According to Christian nationalists, America’s men inhabit the Longhouse. In First Things, the anonymous writer L0m3z described that now ubiquitous online term as the “overcorrection of the last two generations toward social norms centering feminine needs and feminine methods for controlling, directing, and modeling behavior.” Christian nationalists argue that modern feminism’s fatwa against “toxic” masculinity pathologizes healthy masculine virtues and renders men subservient and docile. Innumerable pits of quicksand are ready to engulf any man who makes a wayward step: kangaroo tribunals led by college administrators ready to prosecute the merest suspicion of sexual misconduct, heavily biased family courts, and phalanxes of white knights and doxxers on social media apps who seek to destroy the lives of those who run afoul of regime-approved orthodoxies.
Amidst this carnage, Zoomers and young Millennials are searching for a path by which they can achieve greatness, excellence, self-mastery, and vitality. This is why men in these circles have exhorted being in good shape, lifting weights, and eating right—not due to a base materialism but because preserving the physical body is an implication of the Sixth Commandment. And they champion other aims, including getting (and staying) married and having kids, building productive households, buying land and establishing anti-fragile homesteads, and being engaged in every facet of their local communities.
Above all, Christian nationalists reject the status to which Christians have been assigned: naïve patsies who believe that Christ’s teachings mandate the destruction of one’s nation and people. They want nothing to do with year-zero theology, the notion that Christianity best flourishes when Christians have no political power and face routine persecution and martyrdom.
Instead, they are looking to recover the collective will of Christians and confidently assert their interests in public. They would heartily agree with Kevin Slack’s cri de cœur made in this publication that Christianity “must once again become a fighting faith, the inheritance of the battles of Edington, Tours, and Lepanto.”
Defender of the Faith
How, exactly, can a nation be Christian? Crucially, according to Wolfe, the term does not imply that every citizen needs to be a believer. Instead, Christian nations exist when “everyday life is invested and adorned with Christianity (e.g., Christian manners and expectations) and when life orients around distinctly Christian practices such as the worship of God (e.g., sabbath observance).”
Read More
Related Posts:
Why I Am Not A Christian Nationalist
Nationalism Isn’t American
Christian Nationalism In The United States
Don’t Criticize Your In-Group in the Out-Group’s Forums
The Different Shades of Christian Nationalism
|
|
