How Shall We Then Live With Unbelievers

The title of this article is based on the title of a multipart documentary by Francis Schaeffer. His work was trying to call America to return to a Christian base for thought. However, here, we need to examine what the New Testament tells us believers regarding how we should relate to unbelievers in our society. This is a very important subject seeing the rise in cultural and societal Christian hubris that is evident in many religiously conservative American Christians including those who are Christian Nationalists and a significant number of those who aren't. I wanted to write about this despite the fact that the biggest current threat to American Democracy is the oligarchy.

Before disussing how those of us Christians should live with unbelievers, we need to face one of our own liabilities. This liability is our penchant for authoritarianism. We are told to submit to so many biblical authority structures and figures that it is difficult for us to turn off the authority switch. Thus when we experience life in society, we are seemingly always looking for proper authority figures to give us orders to obey, and we expect all others to follow suit. After all, misery loves company. And since we are always looking for authority figures to submit too, we often conflate a biblical submission to authority figures with authoritarianism.  And what we miss is that there are times and places where we can turn off the authority switch and live with others as equals.

And so we religiously conservative Christians can unknowingly embrace authoritarianism. We'll describe authoritarianism in terms of the relationships that exist between the authoritarian leader and their authoritarian followers. Authoritarian leaders want total control over what their followers believe. One way they do that is to use labels to reduce a person to just one characteristic, act, or a piece of slander. Such a use of labels is designed to get people to automatically or reflexively accept or reject what is said by a given source. Laudatory labels are used to persuade people to assume that what a given source says is correct while the pejorative use of labels are used to persuade people to assume that what a given source says is false. Notice the black/white thinking involved here.

As for authoritarian followers, they are looking for nanny thinkers. They are looking for leaders with whom they can automatically agree. Therefore, authoritarian followers are much more concerned with who made a claim rather than why the claim was made. If we want to escape from being an authoritarian follower, then we will invest more time into examining why a claim is being made than who made the claim.  The approach  taken by authoritarian followers can be best expressed by making a slight alteration to a bumper sticker about the Bible which I used to see:

'God said it. I believe it. That settles it'

Now if we insert a fill-in-the-blank for the word 'God,' then we get a picture of the sentiments of the authoritarian follower:

_________ said it. I believe it. That settles it. 

For religiously conservative Christians, names that authoritarian followers might insert could include Calvin, Arminius, Luther, Jonathan Edwards, J. Gresham Machen, Tim Keller, Charles Stanley, Charlie Kirk, Rush Limbaugh (for yous psuedo old-timers), Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, John Hagee, Dr. David Jeremiah, and Robert Jeffress. Skipping over the Liberals here, leftist leaders drawing authoritarian followers include Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Chris Hedges, Bernie Sanders, Martin Luther King Jr., Mao, and Karl Marx. We should note here that  not all of the people just mentioned act as authoritarian leaders. Just because a leader has authoritarian followers does not imply that that leader is an authoritarian leader.

We should note another reason why my fellow religiously conservative Christians have a penchant for authoritarianism. That reason can be observed by looking at the quoted bumper sticker. We sometimes project the same characteristics that we attribute to God or God's Word to our pet leaders and/or ideologies. For example, some believe that their favorite form of Capitalism works in all times and situations. For others, it is there favorite form of Marxism. Note that neither Captialism nor Marxism are monolithic. In addition, we prefer to become authoritarian followers because it makes life more simple and safe. We don't have to critically examine what our adopted leaders have to say, all we have to do is to trust and obey them. And as with authoritarian followers of different religious or ideological stripes, becoming such a follower of someone who is famous or seems to be an impressive leader can give us a sense of significance and even belonging.

I believe that it is the penchant for authoritarianism that us religiously conservative Christians have which has provided a significant driving force to the recent emergence of today's Christian hubris. We believe that our leaders know what's best and because we have been trained to look for authority figures to follow, and, again, misery loves company, we not only fall in line, we expect, or demand, that everyone else in society do the same

Now we can examine what the New Testament says about how we are to live with unbelievers in society. Note that this discussion will be incomplete in the Scriptures that will be mentioned. But that does not imply that nothing of value will be said. Our first stop is John 3:1-8 (click here for the source).

'Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews; 2 this man came to Jesus at night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus responded and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless someone is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

4 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a person be born when he is old? He cannot enter his mother’s womb a second time and be born, can he?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which has been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which has been born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it is coming from and where it is going; so is everyone who has been born of the Spirit.”'

Why is the above passage important? It is because one of the justifications why some are promoting Christian Nationalism is that Jesus charges us to make disciples of every nation--a.k.a, the Great Commission. Despite the fact that the declension of the word for nation used in the Great Commission (click here for the source of the passage) most often refers to ousiders in the New Testament, one cannot be a disciple without faith. And note, in the passage quoted above, what determines when faith comes. Though we Christians are charged with evangelizing, we can't control the results. We can't control whether faith comes to a person. And so how can any set of laws or leaders make anyone into a disciple of Christ as defined by the New Testament? And yet that is what Christian hubris, especially Christian Nationalism, tries to do.

Or let's look at other New Testament Scriptures. For example, in Matthew 10:12-14 (click here for the source), Jesus told his disciples that if people do not listen to what they say, then leave and walk away.

In addition, both Jesus and Peter instruct us not to dominate others (click here and there for those sources). And though those instructions were about how Christian leaders were to treat believers under their care, why does that not have at least some application to how believers should treat unbelievers.

We could also look at I Corinthians 5:9-11 (click here for the source). There, Paul tells fellow Christians to not associate with church members who are immoral. But note that he does not say that we shouldn't associate with immoral unbelievers. What those with Christian hubris want to do, to varying degrees, is to use their laws to remove unbelievers who are immoral as described in the I Corinthians passage from the presence of God's people in society. That would have the same effect as what Paul said should not be done: to remove Christians from the world.

Another passage that is quoted to justify Christian hubris in society is a passage like Romans 13 and in I Peter 2 (click here and there for the sources). In those passages, the government's purpose is to punish those who do evil and honor those who do good. And since all sins are evil, those with Christian hubris believe that we need laws that are only based on God's laws. There are two problems with such an approach. First, again, we are sharing society with unbelievers and so we, in many instances, would have to require an obedience that can only come with and after faith and we can't manufacture faith in people. In addition, such an approach causes governments to only represent believers and to be apathetic or hostile to unbelievers. Such an approach would allow believers to use the government as a proxy to dominate unbelievers. We should also note that the evil mentioned in those two passages was not defined but assumed to be understood by that audience.

Another justification for Christian hubris in society which I have seen consists of a logic that says because we, unlike those in New Testament times, have an opportunity to make society a Christian one, we should do so. And so the examples and the teachings of the Apostles become irrelevant. But such opportunism ignores the New Testament and forgets the dynamics involved when people come to faith and start to become obedient to Christ.

The New Testament tells us that God is patient and wants all to come to repentance and believe. And the question becomes whether Christian hubris practices that patience. Yes, we need certain laws from the Scriptures to protect a nation's citizens from each other and others. But most, if not all of those laws, have been repeated by other sources and provide no privilege to Christianity in society. Those laws that would privilege Christianity above the beliefs of others and would put us religiously conservative Christians into positions of treating unbelievers as subordinates and thus in ways that are not supported by the New Testament. Tim Alberta emphasizes this point when he talks about Peter. For example, when Jesus was being arrested, Peter responded with the sword and Jesus rebuked him. But in I Peter 2, when Christians are being persecuted by unbelievers, Peter tells us to imitate Christ when He was put on trial and was crucified. Christ didn't trade insult for insult. Instead, he suffered quietly so that He could  be take our place by being crucified. Peter goes on to say that how Christ responded set an example for us to follow (click here to see that portion of I Peter 2).

The final argument for Christian Nationalism rests on the claim that God made a covenant with America and so, to keep that covenant, America must follow God. Such a view, however, ignores how covenants were made in the Bible. It was always God who initiated and defined a covenant, not the people. And those covenants are recorded in the Scriptures. In addition, the fulfillment of every covenant was seen in Christ and in Him only. Claiming that God made Americans his covenant people removes Christ from the center of the revelation about the covenant and the covenant itself. Instead, we need to ask whether proclaiming that Americans are God's covenant people is more a result of corporate self-promotion rather than preaching Christ.

And so, just perhaps, we should examine whether democracy with equality puts us religiously conservative Christians in the most optimal situation for how we should share society with unbelievers. That we should look at ourselves as peers with unbelievers in sin because we are. We should look at unbelievers as peers in society, because they are Thus, we can work side-by-side with unbelievers in shaping society knowing that not only do we need to give them, what is for us, an uncomfortabe amount of leeway, we also have much to learn from them. In addition we have Christ's first coming as our example, not His sescond coming. And at that point, we should focus on bearing the fruit of the Spirit in their presence, as Kristin Kobes Du Mez constantly tries to remind us (click here for the list of the fruit of the Spirit). We really need to get how we share society with unbelievers right because the reputation of the Gospel is, in large part,  riding on it. Here, we should note that when Christians dominated many nations during Christendom, all sorts of injustices were practiced then and thus became associated with the Gospel.

Is Christian Nationalism Just The Tip Of The Iceberg?

 As we all know, an iceberg is larger than what can be observed above the water. In fact, the part of the iceberg that we can see is the smaller, and least threatening, part of the iceberg. According to the AI used by Google, around 90% of an iceberg is submerged.

The above pertains to Christian Nationalism because of the growing authoritarian movement in the U.S. This authoritarianism has already captured the Presidency. And because of the influence that Christian Nationalism has had on some of Trump's key people and the public attention that it is receiving, the question being considered here is whether Christian Nationalism is just the tip of the threat being posed to America's democracy or is there is something more dangerous lurking below the surface.

Christian Nationalism not only threatens to replace our democratic processes for determining our representatives and how they make decisions; it opposes equality by granting religiously conservative Christianity a privileged place above all ethnic and ethnic-religious groups in determining who will be governing our society. We should note what has been previously claimed in this blog. That what we are seeing in Europe and North America is a battle between Democracy with equality vs Authoritarianism with hierarchy. And the first sign of the latter is when an individual/group/ideology attacks equality for others. For without equality, we have no democracy, which, in contrast to authoritarianism with hierarchy, would be the rule of the people--the 'demos' means people. With the onset of Christian Nationalism here, what we seem to have, as Jeff Halper pointed out in his book, An Israeli in Palestine: Resisting Dispossession, Redeeming Israel, is an ethnocracy--the rule of an ethnocity or selected set of ethnocities over all of the people,

And so what is most apparent about the current authoritarianism in America is its Christian Nationalism character. But is Christian Nationalism the only threat to our democracy? And if the answer is 'no,' then what other threats are there to our democracy?

We need to realize that religiously conservative Christians do not have to be Christian Nationalists to threaten our democracy. That is because religiously conservative Christians have a strong penchant for favoring authoritarianism. Consider the following 2 video clips of John MacArthur speaking on Christian Nationalism and then on the freedom of religion:

AND

Outside of the abortion issue, which is really a social justice issue if the unborn child is a human life, note that MacArthur opposes both equality for the LGBT community and religious freedom. One could summarize his opposition to both equality and religious freedom by noting that he seems to conflate supporting the right to choose with supporting the choices made. That is because Christians should not support people chosing homosexuality, transgenderism, and the practice of other faiths than the Christian faith, he believes that Christians should oppose giving people the option to choose those alternatives. And so in attacking the freedom to choose, MacArthur is attacking the equality of people from the LGBT community and those who hold to nonChristian religious faiths. A Christian approach to supporting equality for the LGBT community and those who hold to nonChristian faiths would be to support people having the right to  choose options that we religiously conservative Christians don't want them to choose. Such a perspective protects the equality of those mentioned by respecting their right to choose unbiblical alternatives. And then we could add that we Christians could then offer different choices through evangelism.

Note that MacArthur does not support Christian Nationalism. And yet, he is attacking the equality of some who think differently than he does. And the same goes for others, my fellow religiously conservative Christians in particular, who use code words to justify their opposition to equality for certain groups. Their opposition is based on traditional Christian beliefs that sprang from Christendom, which was an authoritarian time period when Christianity had a privileged place of influence and power over all other faiths throughout Europe and much of the Americas.

These code words are often used to obligate the civil authorities to ban certain practices that are condemned in the Scriptures. Code words like 'natural law' or the 'moral law' can be defined a number of ways. But when referred to by many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians, what they refer to are Christian definitions of those words. In fact, because Christian Nationalism is a diverse movement, sometimes what those religiously conservative Christians use code words want ends up being the same laws that some Christian Nationalists want to exist. Now it is obvious that Christian Nationalists are far more visible than these other Christians in terms of posing a threat to our democracy. But is Christian Nationalism the only threat to our democracy? 

So what else could be attached to the iceberg that has Christian Nationalism as its tip? As this blog has pointed out before, oligarchy also threatens our democracy. And in a nation that celebrates Capitalism like America does, and especially like this President does, to follow what motivates those in our government, we need to follow the money. And in this case, that means we must look at the influence that certain sets of financial and corporate elites have on our government.

Here, we should note the past. And by the past, we should note Russia's influence on our President. Why? It is because Russia's Putin not only significantly contributed to Trump's 2024 election win and his other campaigns, he is greatly admired by Trump. And in terms of Putin's contribution to Trump's win in 2024, we don't know how much Trump owes Putin for his victory. In terms of admiration, Timothy Snyder, who is the author of the book, The Road To Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America, Trump's strong concern with having Putin's approval began in 2013. In addition, at one time, Trump chose to believe Putin regarding his attempts to influence our elections over what our intelligence agencies said.

This blog used the question of how much Trump owes Putin along with his admiration of him to predict what would happen if Trump was elected: Russia would be America's future. And what is Russia? It is a corrupt oligarchy run by a strongman where the national identity is tied to the Russian Orthodox Church even though most Russians do not regulary attend worship services.. That while Putin's government tosses out enough culture bones, such as its strong opposition to LGBT lifestyles, out to the Russian Orthodox Church to garner its support, it is mostly Putin, and then his oligarchs who are running the nation and primarily benefitting from its rule.  

What do we see in America? At Trump's inauguration, elite tech leaders were given seats of privilege. We see how Trump and his family has been financially garnering hundreds of millions of dollars in wealth. We see corporations receiving tax cuts, secured through the "Big Beautiful Bill," and cuts in regulations. And some are receiving higher government contracts. We see Trump removing Congressionally approved funds from charitable, educational, social safety net funds. In addition, there is the power that Trump gave to Elon Musk, who contributed around $250 million to Trump's campaign. And who did Trump take with him in his trip to China?

But if those facts are not enough, Trump's Presidency provides enough evidence to show that we have already entered some level of oligarchy. Trump's personal criteria for success is based on domination and acquisition. As mentioned before, programs of 'social uplift,' as Martin Luther King Jr. called them, are easily sacrificed because there is no profit being made. Trump has said that the federal government can no longer support Medicare, Medicaid, and some food assistance programs because the government can't afford to support those programs and pay for  what Trump sees are new defense needs to a tune of $600 billion being added to the defense department. As with USAID, Trump is threatening to cut federal assistance to state unemployment funds because of Trump alleged fraud. But that increase in defense spending is despite the fact that the Pentagon continually fails audits. And so it is the Military Industrial Complex, along with Trump's Presidential power that are the main beneficiaries of that increase in spending. This should remind us of what Martin Luther King Jr. once said:

'A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death'

Or look at Trump's military aid to autocratic regimes like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Or look at how Trump supports Ukraine in its war with Russia. Trump supports Ukraine by selling needed weapons to Europe to give to Ukraine. Do you see the transactional basis for his policies. While criticizing Biden for freely providing some weapons for Ukraine, Trump is seeking an economic profit for corporations here as the basis for helping Ukraine. In short, and an early blog article has already made this point, Trump is the culmination of all that is wrong with Capitalism according to Marx.

We should include that some of the programs that are being cut or are threatened with being cut enable greater social/economic mobility for those who are the have-nots. Here, we should note what Martin Luther King Jr. said in his 1967 interview by Xander Vanocur. What  King stated was that he was afraid that his 'dream' was turning into a nightmare because of the lack of economic improvement for many blacks. Much of the above should help us see some degree of connection between financial well-being with civil rights

At the same time, Trump portrayed himself as the savior-defender of religiously conservative Christianity in America. And he has appointed people who have been strongly influenced by Christian Nationalism to certain key positions in his administration. In the meantime, Trump has been waging a "Christian" crusade against wokism, both here and abroad, to the extent that he is violating the free speech of those in the education systems of our nation.

Yes, Christian Nationalism should be a concern for us.  Some of it is just the tip of the iceberg while the rest is the part of the iceberg that that threatens our democracy. We are right to be concerned about it.

However, it is too easy to become so focussed on Christian Nationalism that we blind ourselves to the threat that oligarchy poses to our democracy and way of life. Here we should note that most of the dangers posed by Christian Nationalism lie in the future. In contrast to that, oligarchy is not just posing current dangers to our democracy, it has been damaging our democracy for a while. And so again, according to this blog, the current authoritarian movement in America is using a religious façade to garner the votes of religiously conservative Christians to support something in addition to Christian Nationalism. And though the iceberg that threatens to sink our democracy consists of both Christian Nationalism and oligarchy, it is time that we start paying more attention to our oligarchy, to the large part of the submerged iceberg, that has been gouging huge holes in the hull of our democracy some time now.

How To Avoid Becoming A Secular Pharisee

I want to tie two seemingly unrelated quotes together. The first quote comes from Jesus's parable of the two men praying in Luke 18:9-14 (click here for the source):

 

9 Now He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt: 10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood and began praying this in regard to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, crooked, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’ 13 But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to raise his eyes toward heaven, but was beating his chest, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’ 14 I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other one; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

The second quote come from the speech that Martin Luther King Jr. gave protesting the Vietnam War (click here for the source):

'The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.'

Before I connect the two quotes together, we need to substitute a fill-in-the-blank for the word 'Western.' As a result, we come up with the following:

The ________ arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not  just.'

Note that we can use any group's or individual's name in the fill-in-the-blank. For examples:

The Leftist arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just

or

Curt's arrogance of feeling that he has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just

And so we should see that this arrogance of feeling knows no personal, group, nor ideological boundary. From here, we should easily see the connection between the 2 quotes. In the former, we see the Pharisee who offers evidence of his own righteousness by how he is  morally superior to the Tax Collector.  The Pharisee proudly proclaims that not only is he morally superior to the Tax Collector, that he is without fault while the Tax Collector is without merit.

And what is said in the second quote? That the 'Western arrogance of feeling' proclaims that the West believes that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them. This does not just imply that the West believes that it is superior to other parts of the world, it claims that the disparity is so great that the West is completely self-sufficient while the rest of the world is dependent on the West. Just as a side note, do we still wonder why there are some Americans, the President for example, who are plagued with narcissism?

Those of us who believe in Christ should be alarmed at having such arrogance. We should be alarmed because arrogance is not only not smiled on by God in either the Old or New Testaments, such arrogance brings God's opposition and punishment. And so no believer should have such an arrogance of feeling, but many of us do anyway.

To the unbeliever, having such an arrogance of feeling is not necessarily a problem as it is for the Christian, and so many of them could enjoy being arrogant, but not all do. And so one of the many conditions that harms the reputation of the Gospel is when an individual or group of believers are arrogant while there are many unbelievers who are repulsed by that characteristic.

By now we should see how the second quote can be an example of the Pharisee's attitude expressed in the first quote. Though they are not identical, the two quotes have enough in common so that the person or group  in question in the 2nd quote becomes an example of the Pharisee from the 1st quote. And since what the West was trying to teach others involved secular concerns, then we can conclude that one does not have to be religious to be a Pharisee. That those who have only secular interests can be Pharisees too.

The possibility of becoming a Pharisee should, for us who believe in Christ,  strike fear in us because of what happens to the Pharisee in the end.  We should also note that, for us believers in Christ, there is never a time whenwe can safely pray the prayer of the Pharisee nor is there a time when we no longer need to pray like the Tax Collector.

For unbelievers, the possibility of becoming a Pharisee means that one is emulating the characteristics of what they often criticize Christians for. 

Many of my fellow believers will object to what has been written here by claiming that because they have Biblical worldview, in contrast to the worldviews of unbelievers, they have everything to teach unbelievers and nothing to learn from them because they have what unbelievers don't have. Here, James Boice's criticisms of Monasticism and the early Anabaptists apply here as well. We should note that those Monastics and Anabaptists believed that, because of how corrput unbelievers were, they had nothing to learn from unbelievers, Boice said that the attitude of the Monastics and early Anabaptists failed both to appreciate the effects that God's common grace could have on people in government and on those influencing culture as well as it  'overestimated' the godliness of devout believers including themselves (see pg 104 of Two Cities, Two Loves: Christian Responsibility In A Crumbling Culture). And so those fellow believers who conclude that they have everything to teach unbelievers because of  their own adherence to a biblical worldview have deceived themselves about both their godliness and the contributions that unbelievers can contribute.

At this point, we should point out the carrot that arrogance holds out in front of us. That carrot consists of feeling good about oneself. That carrot consists of feeling a sense of significance. In fact, feeling superior to others can be especially gratifying especially when others consist, in part, of those whom we do not respect or even despise. In addition, being arrogant can lead us to feeling entitled over others. However, because being arrogant can make some feel significant, challenging a part of those beliefs that makes them feel significant, regardless of the facts and logic one employs, can be perceived as a personal attack by those who feel superior to others.

Certainly there are individuals and groups from all over the ideological spectrum that could accurately be used in the above fill-in-the-blank. And there are other times in which our own names could accurately put in the fill-in-the-blank. But because of the current situation, we need to look at the Evangelical support for President Trump and his policies. Why? It is because of both what Trump has said and done, especially during his 2nd term as President, and the level of support he gets from religiously conservative Christians.

Note that Trump had campaigned on the claim that only he can fix it with it being the nation with its problems. Trump had hats made saying: 'Trump Was Right About Everything.' Or consider the title of a Charlie Kirk book: The MAGA Doctrine: The Only Ideas That Will Win The Future. Don't both Trump's self-proclamations and the book title sound way to similar to what was said in the second quote? And, if so, can't both Trump's self-proclamations and Kirk's book title  cause those who embrace those sentiments to speak like what was said in the 2nd quote?

If so, then perhaps the Evangelical community needs to reexamine the kind of commitment that it has made to both Trump and the MAGA Doctrine. The claim that some believers have all of the knowledge while unbelievers have none should raise a score of red flags because of the arrogance that such a claim carries with it. The recommended reexamination does not imply that one must necessarily leave the Trump and MAGA followings, though I would strongly recommend it, such a reexamination should cause Christians in the Trump and MAGA followings to adamantly stand for drastic change in both their leader and their their groups. That change must include promoting hybrid approaches and solutions to our nation's problems rather than just Trump and MAGA ones. Those hybrid solutions must have contributions from unbelievers who hold to different ideologies than MAGA ones. That is because, as the Scripture say, 'GOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD' (which is part of I Peter 5:5). And looking down on others as inferiors is a first and almost certain indicator that one is arrogant. On the other hand, recognizing the contributions that those outside one's group can make is evidence, though not necessarily proof, that one is not arrogant.

For those fellow believers who insist on Christian Nationalism, arrogance cannot be one of their traits. In fact, arrogance should never be a part of any Christian's life. And we should note that for those of us believers who have escaped the clutches of yearning for Christian Nationalism, we have our own sins to battle. We can neither entertain the notion that we are superior to any Christian Nationalist nor think that we have nothing to learn from them. We too should seek hybrid approaches and solutions to our nation's problems. This should cause us to avoid the all-or-nothing thinking that Trump and many MAGA followers employ--a kind of thinking that provides the cognitive foundation for authoritarianism. And that authoritarianism would make believers do what both Jesus and Peter warned against: the lording it over of others.

  

How Can America Be A Christian Nation?

 A national Christian prayer event occurred in our nation's capital this past weekend. The basic concern of the event was about how to rededicate our nation to Christ. Such an event sounds harmless enough, but was it really?

Rededicating the nation to Christ meant that those in the event want our nation to return to being what it used to be: a Christian nation. And so, the event was really about Christian Nationalism.

How was our nation a Christian nation? It certainly wasn't the aim of The Constitution. We should notice that not only was there an absence of any statements in that document which affirms America being a Christian nation, there are a couple of statements that contradicts such a notion. In addition, the Constitutional debates indicate that basing the nation's federal government on any religion was something to be avoided at all costs.

But what we should note, however, is that in several of the state constitutions, were statements that endorsed some form of Christianity as a state religion. In addition, we should note that in terms of culture and the religious self-image of many of the people, we could call our nation a Christian nation.

There is something else we should note, however. That our nation's Christian self-image was due to demographics. That is that, because of Christendom, the demographics were so affected so that many people identified as Christians. And this is an important point because our nation's religious demographics ain't what they used to be. And so how close can should we return to the past.

There is something else to note. That if we claim that America was a Christian nation at its beginning, then we Christians own some unsavory history from the past. That dubios history revolves around racism. Our nation was at least partially based on racism. It's in our early practices such as race-based slavery and the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans from the land. It was in the federal laws governing citizenship.  They stated that only free white men could become citizens of the U.S. And even after Black men could become citizens, which was after the Civil War, we had Jim Crow and Redlining among other practices. 

And so if America was to return to the good old days, would we also include a return to the racism of the past? Or would we employ new forms of racism? We should note that we don't call the current move toward Christian Nationalism in America, we call it 'White Christian Nationalism.' 

There are two ways by which we could call America a Christian nation today. The first way is if the majority of Americans were actual Christians. The problem with that way is that we cannot manipulate people into becoming Christians. Making a person a Christian is the work of the Holy Spirit and we have no control over the Spirit. And so we have no control over making the majority of Americans Christians.

And so the second way is to change our nation's laws so that they resemble Church laws to a significant degree. And though there are Church laws that are already a part of the laws of our land, not all are.

The above has always been a challenge for the Church. What Church laws should also be laws governing society? And this is where it gets sticky for Christian Nationalists and society because not all agree on the same set of laws. Do we want so many Church laws to also be a part of the laws the govern society? At what point in instituting Church laws, are we showing privilege to Christianity over other religions? And which Church laws would cause people to violate their own religious practices?

When answering those questions, we should note again that religious demographics ain't what they used to be. That we don't have the Christian consensus in America that once existed. And so we have to then consider the amount of control that we Christians should have to exert over unbelievers to pass and enforce the Church laws that we want to become the law of the land. Such is an important consideration because both Jesus and Peter tell us not to 'lord it over' others.

In addition, the Apostles' approach to fulfilling the Great Commission was through teaching and preaching only. Jesus once said that if people do not accept the preaching of the disciples, that His disciples were to move on. There is also a misreading of the Great Commission as seen below (click here for the reference):

16 But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated to them. 17 And when they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. 18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. 19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to follow all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

The issue here has to do with the Greek word for 'nations.' For some take that to mean to force each nation to be Christian. The Greek word for nations here is 'ἔθνη.' According to the Greek-English lexicon of Bauer, Arendt and Gingrich, the form of the Greek word there means outsiders. That instead of talking about discipling each nation, the disciples were ordered to preach to those outside their group. And, indeed, the use of the form of the word for nation, 'ἔθνη,' often means outsiders both in the Greek Septuagint, which is the Old Testament in Greek, and in the New Testament. And such an understanding would relieve the pressure to feel compelled to make each nation a Christian nation, since such is not in our control in the first place.  

There is another issue to consider here. The modern movement toward Christian Nationalism promoted by some of my fellow believers in Christ, was given its greatest impetus by the Obergfell decision in 2015. Many Christian ministers and leaders opposed the legalization of same-sex marriage. Some said that it should be prohibited because such would interfere with the flourishing of society. After the decision was announced, many Christian leaders advocated that Christians should take a semi-monastic approach to society, which is they sequestered themselves into groups of like-minded believers, until such a time when they could be assured that society no longer had a negative view of the faith. The Benedict Option was such an example. We should note that Aaron Renn described Christianity as going through 3 stages of acceptance by society. According to him, the negative perception of the Church started in 2014 , which was part of the time when the Obergfell decision was being considered.

That decision recognized a greater equal status for the LGBT community in society. Apparently, many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians then feared that if same-sex marriage was considered equal to heterosexual marriage in society, the property values of marriage would drop. In addition, many of my fellow Christians feared that if society welcomed the LGBT community as equals, that such an acceptance would have a corrupting influence on the Church

But it was also more than the fear of what would happen to heterosexual marriage. With the emergence of the LGBT community from the margins of society came a shock to many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians. Society had changed too much and too quickly for them. Many of my fellow believers no longer recognized the nation in which they were living. And considering how patriotic many of those fellow believers are, they were not just in shock, they were grieving for the loss of what once was. This loss speaks predominantly to white religiously conservative Christians because for many Black fellow believers, what had been also lost over time was Jim Crow culture and laws. It's not that there is no more systemic racism with the current gerrymandering at the expense of representation for Blacks in the House of Representatives serving as just another reminder that systemic racism lives. That is  because the loss of representation for Blacks in the House was not enough of an impediment to stop the current gerrymandering in red  states. It is that even though there was less systemic racism, thing had been changing. In the end, more whites felt negatively about the drastic changes in society.

Christian Nationalism concerns itself with societal laws that affect culture for both unbelievers and believers. What garnered such a high percentage of Evangelical votes for Trump is that he took the side of many religiously conservative Christians, as well as that of Putin (or wannabe Emperor Putintine), in the culture wars. The emergence of the LGBT community from the margins of society created the same reaction in my fellow Christians that the bourgeoisie dictatorship did in Marx. Marx thought that the only way to overthrow the oppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie was to replace the bourgeoisie dictatorship with a proletariat one. Such was an example of Marx's black-white thinking on that oppression. He never, that I know of, thought that one way of eliminating the oppression by the bourgeoisie was to get the bourgeoisie and proletariat to collaborate together. And so for many of my fellow believers, the appropriatae response to the emergence of the LGBT community from society was to return that community to the margins of society.

An alternative response would be to replace the culture wars with cultural coexistence as equals and then depend on evangelism and other forms of teaching, as well as discipline in the Church only, as ways of fulfilling the Great Commission. Such a dependence seems to be the way of the Apostles to fulfill the Great Commission.

The tragic thing here for the conservative Church in America, this call to some degree of Christian control over society just might be a front for installing an oligarchy. For that seems to be the battle in Europe. That Democracy with equality is being challenged by authoritarianism with hierarchy that take the form of ethnocracy. And not all examples of ethnocracy are religiously based. But regardless of the form, using ethnocracy as a façade appeals to many conservative voters.

And so some leading the charge for Christian Nationalism are using that label to monopolize conservative votes to support oligarchy. And that would make oligarchy a preferable form of governing to Democracy with equality.

Christian Nationalism Is A Marxist Christianity

Being a Christian Fundamentalist who politically leans toward Marx, I am interested in what other Christians write about Marx and Marxism. The most balanced view of Marx and Marxism came from Martin Luther King Jr in his book: Stride Toward Freedom.

In that book, written in the 1950s, King called Marxism evil and yet he agreed with the former Archbishop William Temple who called Marxism a 'Christian heresy.' By that, both Temple and King saw in Marx and Marxism concerns that every Christian should have but those concerns were joined with beliefs and practices that no Christian should ever accept. 

Contrast that with religiously conservative Christianity's current reviews of Marx and Marxism and some of its derivatives today. For most of today's conservative Christian reviews of Marxism and some of its derivatives paint all negative portraits of Marx and Marxism in that they present it as something to totally reject. It's like those reviewing Marx and Marxism today always take a Jenga approach to interpreting both. That is they look to disprove the one presupposition or tenet that would cause the tower of Marx, Marxism, and its derivatives to totally collapse. The attitude that those religiously conservative Christian reviewers of Marx and Marxism have reminded me of a quote by Martin Luther King Jr when he spoke against the Vietnam War:

'The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.'

And so if we replaced the word 'Western' with a fill-in-the-blank,  some religiously conservative Christians could have their names inserted into that sentence when they talk about Marx and Marxism.

However, a subset of these religiously conservative Christians are now seeking to respond to their current circumstances as Marx told the proletariat to respond to the bourgeoisie. And we can call that group of Christians 'Marxist Christians.' The group I am referring to here are Christian Nationalists.

Though Marx and Marxism cannot be reduced to a single tenet, its most foundational part, as stated in The Communist Manifesto, is the overthrow of the oppressor class, which was the bourgeoisie, by the oppressed, the proletariat. It is because Marx and Marxism taught that the only way to eradicate the oppression he witnessed was for the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeoisie and to take the bourgeoisie's place as rulers over society.

And so now we enter today's Post Christendom's, Post Modern world where secular liberalism holds sway over American society and past Christian "freedoms," like the right to discriminate against some who are different, are not only threatened, but might become a reason for American society to marginalize religiously conservative Christians. Here we should note that secular liberalism isn't concerned with how Christians live their private lives; it is concerned with when Christians show intolerance to others in society. 

It is now time, according to the words of too many Christian leaders, influencers, and pew sitters, when we can expect to be oppressed by secular liberalism's influence on American society. For the talk by many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians is that if we are not being oppressed now, it won't be long when we will be. After all, that is what the New Testament says will happen to believers. And so what is an oppressed, religiously conservative Christian to do? According to Christian Nationalists, our "biblically mandated" duty is to overthrow secular liberalism with its democracy, equality, and pluralism and  Make America Christian Again (or MACA). 

The above provides the reason for why we can call Christian Nationalism a Marxist Christianity. By that I mean that Marxism, with its talk of the oppressed vs the oppressor and the proletariat dictatorship, is modifying how Christianity view itself and acts. BTW, Marxist Christianity stands in contrast to Christian Marxism because with Christian Marxism,  Christianity would modify how Marxism would function. And the reason why we can call Christian Nationalism a Marxist Christianity because it relies on the same model of thought that Marx and Marxism used: overthrowing the oppression of one's enemy by gaining political control over them. Our oppressor, according to Christian Nationalism, is the reign and influence of secular liberalism.  Therefore,  the only way that the oppression of secular liberalism can be resolved is if we religiously conservative Christians replace secular liberalism as the ruler over our nation. And the only way we can fix the problems that have been caused by secular liberalism is if we, not me personally, religiously conservative Christian seize political control over the nation either by democratic processes or other means--the January 6th Insurrection was an example of the attempt to grab political control through other means. By seeking to seize near total, if not absolute, control, Christian Nationalists are proclaiming to the nation that only we 'can fix it,' whatever it is.

Today's Christian Nationalism is ironic in more than one way. First, by claiming to be law and order people and claiming to be the rightful interpreters of The Constitution, Christian Nationalists have rallied behind a convicted felon and a man who inspired an unconstitutional overthrow of a duly elected government. 

The second irony is that by embracing the oppressed status, either because of present experience or anticipation of the future, and using that status as a main reason for seeking control, Christian Nationalism is practicing what it accuses ideologies such as CRT of employing: emulating Marx's oppressor vs oppressed worldview. It matters not if religiously conservative Christians are barely persecuted here in America. It is that anticipation of the future which is deeply shared by Christian Nationalists and even by others. 

And yet another irony is that while proclaiming itself to be a present or future oppressed class, Christian Nationalists are seeking enough power so that they can return to oppressing select groups of people. Because I lived during part of the Jim Crow era, I grew up during a time when many, but not all, religiously conservative Christianity persecuted blacks. And they used the Bible to defend their actions. Now Christian Nationalism seems to be promising to send the LGBT community back to the margins of society should they gain control and they are using the Scriptures to defend their attempts. 

Christian Nationalism is concerned about God's kingship over the earth. But it mistakenly believes that God's kingship can be politically thwarted by people. Such a belief either minimizes or denies God's plan and power. Because God is all powerful, He works out His plan regardless of our sins. In fact, He uses our sins to work out His will. That was the lesson taught by the deliverance of the Hebrews from Egypt. And it is the lesson that is taught in the crucifixion of Christ for the sins of those who believe in Him. In both cases, Pharaoh's initial refusals to let Moses's people go and Christ's crucifixion, it seemed like God was defeated. But He never was in danger of losing control. And that was shown when Pharaoh finally let the Hebrews go and when he and his army were killed in the Red Sea as well as when Christ rose from the dead. Those examples show that God doesn't need our political help to be king of the world. For He is already king over all that He created.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For February 7, 2024

Sept 10

To Patrick Garry and his article that first criticizes the 4 indictments of Donald Trump as being political silencing and then praises conservative activists as they try to influence local governments. This article was posted in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.

The criticisms that Garry makes on the 4 indictments of Donald Trump borders on, if not fully embraces, lunacy. For at least 3 of those indictments, we have clear, already publicly available evidence that justifies investigations. And then, without access to the evidence that the 4 Grand Juries examined, Garry calls each indictment an attempt to political silence Trump. If we didn't have the publicly available evidence, Garry might have a case. But we do have the evidence along with Trump's admissions that he can do whatever he wants.

It is political tribalism that Garry is appealing to in the above article. But to make matters worse, Garry reduces democracy to our involvement with local governments while praising the conservative activists who are engaged with local governments.

Being involved in one's local government certainly is an exercise in democracy. But so is being involved in one's state and federal governments.

What conservatives overlook with their emphasis on downsizing the size of government, which is often done in order increase the power of business elites, is that democracy isn't measured by the size of a government. For government is like love in this way; size is not the issue, fidelity is. And one way to promote fidelity in every level of government is to ensure that each  group  of citizens is well represented in each level of government. This structurally forces people from different groups to work for the interests of others as well as their own. Here we need to remember that Thomas Jefferson warned us against using majority rule to oppress any minority by denying them their equal status and equal rights.

And so what conservatives are blind to is a demographic centralization of representation in every level of government. For example, when a given group of citizens has a significant enough majority of representatives, they can dominate what that particular level of  government does. 

Conservatives are not just blind to the toxicity that comes from a demographic centralization of representation, they passionately embrace it as long as they are the ones who have the power. Here we should realize that the real political silencing comes as a result of the demographic centralization of representatives in any level of our government. That is because the groups not represented by that kind of majority have no say in government. BTW, that we allow that to happen, let alone not even notice it, proves what Hegel said about how we learn nothing from history.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sept 21

To Heidelblog and Carl Trueman for the portion of Trueman's article that harshly criticizes some of the ways leaders would appear while leading worship at a specific church.

Trueman's whole article can be accessed at:

    https://wng.org/opinions/turning-worship-into-a-clown-show-1691540989

I think that Trueman's criticisms are too harsh. There seems to be no attempt on his part to see the rationality behind why some leaders would lead worship dressed as cartoon characters. It seems to me that one of the motivations for leading worship that way is  the same motivation for  worship music bands to lead singing. That motivation is trying to be relevant.

But when we try too hard to be relevant, we sacrifice some of the reverence that we are to have when worshiping. And that reverence is suppose to revolve around what Trueman mentioned: the holiness and transcendence of God. And so when we try to be too hard to be relevant in our worship of God, we overemphasize the immanence of God at the expense of acknowledging His holiness and transcendence.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sept 29

To Heidelblog and Carl Trueman for the portion of Trueman's article that complains about the 'sexual imperialism' sought by the LGBT community as well as its interpretation of the article, Queering the Mary Rose‘s Collection

Trueman's full article:

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2023/08/queering-a-tudor-warship

The Article referred to:

https://maryrose.org/blog/collections/the-collections-team/queering-the-mary-rose-s-collection/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=CampaignMonitor_Editorial&utm_campaign=LNCH%20%2020230809%20%20House%20Ads%20%20JO+CID_2ce6f81ac95a44b47d43901aab4eb61f

In his article, Trueman seems to be hiding from the real social, not ecclesiastical, issue here: full equality for the LGBT community. Trueman's complaint about 'sexual imperialism' is made selectively since he is really complaining about the change in society's views about sexual orientation and gender identity. He would have no problem if society reverted back to its previous views  about sexual orientation and gender identity that were held to during Christendom. And when complaining about imperialism, what did Trueman think Christendom was? In addition, Trueman's pejorative use of the label, 'anti-Western left,' is used to manipulate is audience to believe that those he opposes on this issue as their enemies.

History has examples of liberal reforms being followed by conservative efforts to undo those reforms. That is what we have here with the LGBT issue. On the one hand, will Christians help push society to steer a steady course toward full equality for the LGBT community? On the other hand, will the LGBT community learn how to make distinctions between  legitimate criticisms from implied calls to bring back the old status quo. A failure to make those distinctions can lead to the LGBT community becoming a mirror image of its enemies.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oct 22

To Heidelblog and Rosaria Butterfield and the Butterfield video making a public comment against teachers who would keep information about a child's transitioning from their parents.

It is important to use comparable objects when making a point. The question becomes whether comparing those who are anorexic with those who have gender dysphoria is valid. Regarding anorexia, there are physical and nonphysical possible causes. Most of them revolve around perfectionism.

The possible physical causes of gender dysphoria include the inability of the body to process certain hormones as well as a disparity between one's brain structure with one's assigned biological sex. Note that there is a male brain structure and a female one. It is possible that at least some with gender dysphoria have the brain structure of the gender they are identifying as. Overall, no one knows what is causing gender dysphoria.

It is the possible physical causes, especially the last one, that seems to have slipped the notice of Christians who are adamant that the science is on their side. The science they refer to is Genesis 1:27, which is a statement made before the Fall. Their science says that there are two discrete biological sexes: male and female. But the science listed above presents a more complicated picture of biological sex. For example, along with the presence of those who are intersex, if a disparity between one's biological sex and the sex associated with one's brain structure along with what we see in some of nature suggest that the biological sexes should be placed on a continuum.

Placing the biological sex categories on a continuum should not threaten to contradict Genesis 1:27. Why? It is because the interpretation that the biological sexes should be regarded as discrete categories does not account for Adam's sin and the Fall. For the Fall just didn't introduce a sin nature in Adam and his descendants, nature fell too according to Paul. So acknowledging what science is investigating does not imply that Genesis 1:27 is false.

A similar argument is made about homosexuality. Many prominent Christian leaders and influencers deny any physical cause for homosexuality. Instead, they attribute homosexuality simply to man's sin nature--which is the part in us that chooses sin over obeying God. But same sex behavior (SSB) occurrs in 1,500 species of animals--living creatures that have no sin nature. So what else is there to attribute SSB to but nature.

And here is the point. Certainly there is a universal side of nature that has been defined by the Scriptures. That side tells us what God designed nature to be. But because of Adam's sin, nature fell too and so there is also an individual personal side of nature where what nature is saying to us depends on how we are biologically constructed and function.

Finally, regarding the high percentage of children in whom gender dysphoria does not persist, there is some missing information. That missing information includes social factors, external pressures, and personal reasons that might cause a person with gender dysphoria to stop their transitioning. Included in the personal reason those children who had gender dysphoria who develop and change in sexual orientation and due to sexual experiences.

The high percentage of children who have gender dysphoria does not negate the existence of those whose gender dysphoria persists. And all of that calls on the medical profession to develop a more stringent set of criteria for diagnosing gender dysphoria and standards in how they will treat gender dysphoria in people of all ages. Perhaps, some protection for children from their parents is needed because of how the parents might react to those whose gender dysphoria will persist through their lifetime. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nov 9

To Heidelblog and Carl Truman for the portion of Truman's article that claimed that the LGBT community is waging war against their bodies by their sexual orientation and/or gender identity and transitioning. 

Truman's full article can be found at:

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2023/09/the-battle-for-the-body

Unfortunately,  for many of us religiously conservative Christian the understanding of the body stops at Genesis 1:27, a verse that precedes the Fall. However, science has been providing evidence that the body might being giving some people different messages than what would be expected from Genesis 1:27. And if we understand enough ramifications from the Fall, this would not make us feel threatened when trusting Genesis 1:27.

We see in the animal kingdom same sex behavior in some 1,500 species as of the last count. We also see some species in which the gender of an animal is not fixed and that gender roles can vary from species to species. Science has also told us that at least some people with gender dysphoria have the brain structure not of the gender that was assigned based on external genitalia, but the structure of the gender they identify with. Science also tells us that some bodies process or fail to process certain hormones in ways that could contribute to gender dysphoria.

And despite all of that, many of us religiously conservative Christians insist that we know the messages being sent by the body based on Genesis 1:27. Just as with geocentrism or with the denial of certain aspects and degrees of evolution, the statements that some of us are making about science could hurt the reputation of the Gospel because they are wrong.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I used google translate to read the article posted below.

Dec 2

To R. Scott Clark and his article in Turkish about whether the civil government was bound to follow what Paul wrote about women teaching and leading in the Church. This appeared in Heidelblog. BTW, the article is in Turkish. I used Google translate to read the article.

Most of what is written above is good. The problem is at the end. Musical instruments were a type of Christ and thus should not be used in worship today?

Or it is clear in Romans 13 that the government governs by Natural Law? But whose Natural Law? Is Clark referring to the second table of the law? Then what about children who don't honor their parents or those who commit adultery? What about homosexuality? The government is to  criminalize those who don't honor their parents? We should throw in jail those who commit adultery or who practice homosexuality?

If Natural Law is based on observation of nature, then the criminalizing of homosexuality would be inconsistent. But as for the first and third questions, didn't Paul show an apathy toward sexual purity in society in I Cor 5? Didn't Paul seem to say that homosexuality should not be seen as a surprise in unbelievers in Romans 1? And aren't those 2 questions borrowing from what Clark observed Paul saying regarding the civil order? And aren't both tables of the law written on the consciences of all people? This seems to be part of Paul's writing in Romans 1:18ff.

I wrote the above because it seems that the basis that Clark uses to say that some of the Mosaic law is no longer binding also applies to practices that Clark sees as binding on civil governments today. In other words, Clark is inconsistent here. Then again, we all have our inconsistencies. 

Plus, that the older Reformed churches eliminated the use of musical instruments should cause us to look at those older Reformed churches as having erred in how they read the Scriptures in addition to the obvious contributions they made to reading the Scriptures. Here, we should be leery of following the traditions of men too closely.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dec 10

To R. Scott Clark and his article on the concept of 'Always Reforming.' Clark's article was written in Spanish and I used Google Translate in order to read what Clark wrote. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Like all other traditions, the Reformed is a mixed bag of good and bad regardless of their intent to be faithful to the Scriptures. After all, didn't most leaders of groups have that same intention during Christendom?

And like other traditionalists, Reformed traditionalists commit the same mistake that Martin Luther King Jr. mentioned when he spoke out against the Vietnam War:

'The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just'

For if we replace the word '<b>Western</b>' with a fill-in-the-blank, we find that all traditionalists are guilty of harboring the same arrogance. And I write that because of the English translation, which comes from Google Translate, from the above article includes the following:

They did not imagine that the theology, piety, and practice of the Reformed church according to the Scriptures were inherently deficient and needed to be supplemented by other traditions.

The 'they' refers to Calvin and other Reformed writers. The arrogance says that they had no deficiency and thus did not believe that what they said needed to be supplemented from the outside is the kind of arrogance about which Martin Luther King spoke. But it could also be at least part of the arrogance exhibited by the Pharisee in the parable of the two men praying.

Hopefully that translated sentence from Clark's article is more projection than a historically accurate assessment of Calvin and the Reformed writers about whom Clark wrote. In any case, the belief that oneself or one's group has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them, regardless of how accurate that one or one's own group can be about some essential doctrines, seems to go against the Scriptures. After all, we are not talking about the Apostles.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dec 15

To Stephen Wolfe and his article on it being ok to be a Christian American. This appeared in the sovereignnations.com website.

There are a variety of Christian families. Perhaps there are families where the parents are professing Christians, go to church, pray, and read the Scriptures. At the same time, the father beats the kids or the mother is having an affair or the kids are on drugs. Would we call such families Christian families?

What have we seen in America? Didn’t America start as white supremacist nation. Never mind The Constitution’s acknowledging racism, the Naturalization Laws of 1790 and 1795 prohibited anyone except for free whites from becoming citizens. Many Blacks were slaves. Women could not become full citizens until the early 1920s. Native Americans could not become citizens until 1924. Blacks could become citizens shortly after the Civil War but following the brief respite provided by Reconstructionism, came Jim Crow. And still many Blacks experience what they call systemic racism today. 

Is it odd that when America was considered to be a Christian nation, racism ruled. When the nation started to leave that Christian status in the 1960s, racism began to be mitigated.There is no need to mention the subjugation of women, the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans from the land, the use of state power to violently suppress workers who struggled to have rights recognized. We could also note how America started to become an overseas empire during the latter part of Christendom’s hold on America.

So the question becomes whether America is just a Christian Nation or has it always been a mixed bag? Or has it always been a Christian Nation in name only? We could cite Christian based laws written in the Constitutions of some of our states, but if we break one law, don’t we become lawbreakers according to James?

Either we can deduce the importance of our national identity from highly regarded traditional Christian writers, or we could take our cue from Paul in Philippians 3 when he counted his ethnic identity, as well as his own personal righteousness, as meaningless in the light of belonging to Christ. And that belonging to Christ was the work of God only. Or we could go to Galatians where there is no Gentile or Jew when it comes to being Christians.

There are at least two reasons why we belong to groups: security and a sense of significance. Some divisions in the Church occur when too much of our sense of significance comes from the other groups we belong to and not enough sense of significance comes from belonging to Christ. Though Paul used his Roman citizenship to help his preaching of the Gospel to more people, didn’t Paul also regard such ties as being of the flesh and thus nothing to be proud of? In fact, doesn’t Paul speak of pride as being the antithesis of faith?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Hiram R. Did, III and his article that sharply disagrees with Trueman's views that we are in a time period of excessive individualism. This reaction was posted in the Sovereign Nations website.

I am a Christian fundamentalist and politically lean toward Marx, and contrary to what was expressed in the above article, I find Trueman's model of thought regarding excessive individualism to be very flawed.

But I also find the above analysis of Trueman's thought to be flawed too. Why? It pronounces Trueman's model of thought as being guilty by association--its association with Marx and Hegel. And so to pronounce it flawed because of that association is to beg the question of the validity of the ideas of Hegel and Marx which are being borrowed. Such an interpretation is an authoritarian approach because the authoritarian test for truth depends on  the use of irrelevant criteria. And while all of what Hegel and Marx wrote assumed rather than proven to be wrong, the association of Trueman's ideas with Hegel and Marx becomes irrelevant criteria. And remember that I disagree with Trueman's model of thought.

What also shows an authoritarian approach to Trueman in the above article is the all-or-nothing view of Marx and Hegel. Forms of all-or-nothing thinking, a black-white worldview in particular, are traits of the authoritarian personality. 

Compare the all-or-nothing approach to Hegel and Marx with the approach that Martin Luther King Jr. demonstrated when comparing Marx and Capitalism in his book 'Stride Toward Freedom.' King's criticism of Marxism and Communism, which he unfortunately conflated is that it forgot that life was individual. When King turns toward Capitalism, he remarks that it forgot that life was social. Thus King acknowledge where parts of both Marxism and Capitalism were wrong, and by implication other parts in both Marxism and Capitalism were said to be right. His analysis stands in stark contrast to the analysis given in the above article. 

Where Trueman is wrong in his analysis is that it is an overreaction to the rejection of traditional authority structures. In addition, and I get the following from reading his articles rather than his book, Trueman is not aware of the individual physical nature of people who are either homosexual or transgendered. Science could have told him about that if Trueman didn't take Genesis 1:27 and Romans 1 as the final word of science on the issues of gender and sexual attraction. Science has been finding evidence of physical and natural causes for homosexuality and gender dysphoria even though both can have multiple causes.

But Trueman is a true ideologue and, as all ideologues are, he is approaching what he sees with an authoritarian mindset. And with that, Trueman and the above article, from different ideologies, share an authoritarian reaction to contrary views.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dec 17

To John Hornet and his article that says we need godly leaders to lead because unbelievers cannot represent the godly. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog

The other pandemic is authoritarianism. And so what we are seeing in many nations today is a battle between democracy with equality and authoritarianism with inequality. While the former is based on sharing power and collaborating, the latter revolves around conquering and controlling.

So where does what the above article claims and is calling for fit in with that model of thought? Seeing that we religiously conservative Christians have a penchant for authoritarianism, the above article is calling us to repeat the mistakes of Christendom. We should note here that Christendom is just one of the natural parents of Critical Theory and Post Modernism.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jan 31

To R. Scott Clark and his 2nd article on how to respond to Satanists and other pagans. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

Before we assess the present and near future threat of our persecution, we need to distinguish how much animosity is being shown to the Gospel as opposed to Christendom and its after effects. For if we could separate the Gospel from Christendom, we could find legitimate points of agreement with unbelievers and such would be a Biblical and rational approach to living at peace with unbelieving neighbors. It would also be a biblical and rational approach to mitigating unnecessary persecution. 

Also, to predict any significant degree of persecution that is coming could be in football terms a false start at playing the victim role.