Category: Bible & Theology

Book Review: “The Case for Christian Nationalism” by Stephen Wolfe

My pastor recently asked me if I had read Stephen Wolfe’s book, The Case for Christian Nationalism (Canon Press, 2022; 475 pages, $24.99). I assume that he asked because of my book, I Pledge Allegiance (Eerdmans, 2018), where I not only criticize all forms of nationalism but strongly condemn Christian nationalism, in particular.

Dr. Wolfe’s book was sitting untouched on my bookcase. So, I returned home from my conversation with my pastor determined to read a volume that seemed to be “making the rounds” in certain circles.

Sparked by the January 6th assault on the US Congress, decorated as it was with Christian imagery like a large wooden cross and handmade signs declaring “Jesus Saves,” there has been a recent flurry of books about Christian nationalism.

Some are for it. Some are against it.

Wolfe is very much in favor of overhauling America in order to make Christianity the national religion, the norm for public behavior and civic engagement, thus producing a thoroughly “Christian nation.”

Let me begin by putting my cards on the table: this book has so many serious problems, it made my head hurt to read more than short snippets at a time. A thorough review would require more space that I can give to it here, so I will focus my attention on Wolfe’s methodology and his consequent justification for viewing nationalism, especially Christian nationalism, as God’s plan for humanity.

A major part of the problem with The Case for Christian Nationalism arises from the fact that the author does not see its problems as a problem. In fact, he almost immediately dismisses any challenges to his approach as irrelevant or misplaced.

From the outset, Wolfe immunizes himself against any scripturally-based criticism by announcing that he “make(s) little effort to exegete biblical text (sic)” (16). Confessing that he is “neither a theologian nor a biblical scholar” with “no training in moving from scriptural interpretation to theological articulation,” Wolfe instead is content to draw from the work of 16th and 17th century, “very Thomistic” Reformed scholars such as John Calvin, Francis Turretin, and the English Puritans, trusting that their theologies have already told us everything we need to know about the New Testament, Christian theology and their intersection with political theory.

Consequently, Wolfe’s method also excludes any engagement with alternative political theologies and traditions. He regularly refers to “the” (Reformed) Christian tradition as if alternatives such as the Anabaptist heritage, an important political/theological strain that differs radically from that of his Reformed icons, never existed. Thus, Wolfe not only immunizes himself against any biblical analysis but also from any divergent theological debate, as well.

It all makes for a safe way to write an extremely odd book.

Having established his presuppositional background, Wolfe then proceeds along the lines of natural theology, building on “a foundation of natural principles” (18); a predictably scholastic move. Finding natural, universal, theological principles in our world today means that Wolfe sees substantial lines of behavioral and structural continuity between the contemporary world of human affairs, on the one hand, and the human situation prior to Adam and Eve’s Fall into sin in Genesis 3, on the other.

Hypothesizing backwards, from the way things are today to the way things would have been had sin never entered creation, Wolfe constructs his own imaginary picture of human development. He fantasizes about human society dividing itself as different family groups migrated, separated, and moved apart from each other.  Different linguistic dialects would have evolved, creating numerous, distinct communities increasingly distinguished from each other by geography, language, and cultural evolution.

“It follows,” Wolfe declares, “that Adam’s progeny would have formed many nations on earth, and thus the formation of nations is part of God’s design and intention for man (emphasis mine). . . the formation of nations is not a product of the fall; it is natural to man as man. . . The instinct to live within one’s ‘tribe’ or one’s own people is neither a product of the fall nor extinguished by grace; rather, it is natural and good” (22-23).

Notice how the imaginary elements of Wolfe’s theoretical, pre-Fall reconstruction are elevated to the status of God’s original design and intention for humanity. Tribalism is not an unfortunate expression of human divisiveness, antagonism, competition, or prejudice. Rather, it is “natural and good,” according to Wolfe. More on this in a moment.

This is a very old line of political argument following the dictates of natural theology. It is an important feature of the Dutch Kuyperian theological tradition that prevails, for instance, at Calvin University, the place where I used to teach. I have encountered it many times. But before we decide to join in with this Reformed theological mind-game, let’s be sure we understand the kind of game we are being asked to play.

For, remember, it is a fictitious game that makes up its own rules, leading to highly questionable results. Looking at “natural” human behavior today, Wolfe assumes a wide swath of unbroken continuity. He assumes that the contemporary modes of behavior we witness now would be equally natural and good for perfected humanity as originally designed by the Creator. In fact, it is the very behavior God originally intended! Thus, “the natural inclination to dwell among similar people is good and necessary (emphasis mine). Grace does not destroy or ‘critique’ it” (24).

In other words, God’s grace would never work to overcome segregation, the separation of the races, class divisions, or ethnic antagonism? Really? Wolfe can try to sugar-coat his whole-hearted embrace of divisive tribalism all he wants, but no amount of hemming or hawing will hide the fact that he offers a far-reaching theological hypothesis that opens a very wide door to the worst sorts of prejudice and discrimination.

Wolfe also leaves us wondering how he happens to know these things? He obviously assumes that we will share his faith in the power of fallen human reason rightly to discern the divinely ordained, robust continuity between the way things are and the way things would have been.

However, I, for one, cannot share his faith . . . or his naivete. For the fact is that Wolfe does not, because he cannot, know any of these things.

He is making it all up on the fly.

And he is making it up while perching precariously on two erroneous assumptions. We’ve touched on them already, but let’s make them explicit: one, he assumes that his fallen human mind can accurately discern God’s original intent for humanity by observing human behavior today; and two, he assumes that he does not need to read scripture for himself; the Reformed scholastics have already done all the necessary work for him.

Of course, this is all standard fare for those who embrace natural theology and theological scholasticism. It also illustrates why I have always rejected both.

Now, let’s try a different thought experiment – and unlike Wolfe, I will not posit any divine authority or normativity to my “mind game.” I offer it merely as a hypothetical alternative scenario.

Let’s dial down the continuity switch on our imaginary thought experiment and turn up the discontinuity dial as we compare the way things are today with respect to the way things might have been before sin entered the world.

Perhaps human beings would have recognized that they were inextricably bound together by the image of God, the distinguishing component of humanity which they all held in common. Perhaps, they would have invested deliberate energy – or perhaps it would have come naturally without any special effort at all – in maintaining loving, hospitable connections, no matter how widely their different family groups ranged across the planet. Maybe they would have wanted to maintain their common language in order to secure tight lines of communication, mutual understanding and trust, no matter the physical distance between them. New discoveries and developments would be shared so that everyone enjoyed the benefits equally, and no one could slip into isolation. As a result, nationalism would never develop. In fact, it would be antithetical to the Creator’s intentions.

I could go on, but you get the picture.

There are no logical or theological reasons to prefer Wolfe’s reconstruction over mine. On the contrary, I would argue that the biblical doctrine of original sin demands a much greater emphasis on behavioral discontinuity than Wolfe’s reconstruction allows.

More than that, aside from the fact that I would prefer to live in my pre-Fall creation than in his, Wolfe’s reconstruction (for biblical reasons that Wolfe prefers to ignore and that I cannot go into here) strikes me as the least likely of all pre-Fall worlds. I cannot help but conclude that Wolfe employs natural theology to sanctify human sinfulness when he should be using biblical theology to critique our sinfulness while holding out the ideals of God’s redemption.

The fact that The Case for Christian Nationalism contains chapters that seriously defend both the “great man” theory of government (chapter seven) – what he calls “a measured and theocratic Caesarism” – and the legitimacy of violent revolution (chapter eight) provides further evidence of how far astray a rationalistic, naturalistic theology can wander when it deliberately severs itself from biblical constraints.

The many Anabaptist martyrs who died at the hands of Reformed, theocratic Caesars shout a loud, uniform condemnation of Wolfe’s brand of theocratic nationalism. It should never be resurrected.

And I pray that God, and liberal democracy, will save us from all those, like Dr. Wolfe, who disagree.

How a Look at Sex in the Old Testament Offers a Way out of the LGBTQ+ Maze

I recently watched another Hollywood movie where the heroine achieves happiness and self-actualization by acting upon her sexual impulses. This is probably one of the most dominant themes produced by Hollywood today. It is also widely accepted at all levels of American society.

First, we are told to believe that the ultimate goal of life is personal happiness. That means, if something makes you happy, do it.

Second, we are told that finding happiness requires acting upon our personal desires, especially our sexual desires. The implication rings out like a drum beat in a marching band: self-denial is pathological; sexual proclivities must be acted out. It is the key to personal fulfilment.

Both of these premises, which seem to have acquired near universal acceptance in our society, are antithetical to the Christian faith.

Which is why it is always good to be reminded of what the Bible says about human sexuality and romantic relationships.

My good friend, Richard Whitekettle, has written one such article explaining (again) the biblical view of sexual intercourse and why it matters today.

Richard is an Old Testament professor at Calvin University in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He is an accomplished biblical scholar and a careful thinker who can be hilariously funny when he wants to be.

My friend not only writes hard-core academic stuff, he also publishes popular articles analyzing current social issues. He recently published an article on human sexuality in The Aquila Report, which carefully lays out God’s original design for male/female relations according to the book of Genesis.

The article is titled “How a Look at Sex in the Old Testament Offers a Way out of the LGBTQ+ Maze.” Below is an excerpt (emphasis mine):

Love is not what valorizes a human sexual relationship in God’s eyes. Love, of course, is related to the idea of a deep and lasting bond between two human beings. But given how widespread the mantra “love is love” has become in valorizing various types of human sexual relationships, it needs to be mentioned separately. The rightness and goodness of a human sexual relationship is not to be found in the subjective feelings of the two human beings. Rather, it is to be found in the objective characteristics of God’s design for human bodies, minds, and relationships. If one is to find love in a sexual relationship, it will not be found in any structure of sexual relationship one chooses. Instead, it will be found by placing oneself within a sexual relationship designed by God.

Click here to read the entire piece.

Eric Metaxas Encourages Violence While Dietrich Bonhoeffer Rolls Over in His Grave

Are American church/state relations in 2022 comparable to German church/state relations in 1933 when the Nazi party began its rise to power?

Eric Metaxas thinks so, and he wants to warn the American church of the existential threat it now faces.

Metaxas’ new book, Letter to the American Church (Salem, 2022; 139 pp., $22.99), begins by declaring that “the parallels [in the American church] to where the German Church was in the 1930s are unavoidable and grim” (ix). These “parallels” are most clearly seen as the evangelical church remains silent in the face of America’s own Nazi-like atrocities.

America’s atrocious sins, which are allowed to flourish in the face of evangelical silence, are comparable to Nazi preparations for the Holocaust. These sins are listed as abortion, globalism, Critical Race Theory, transgenderism, creeping communism, and the state-directed church closures ordered during the covid-19 pandemic, all of which express an “atheistic Marxist ideology” otherwise known as cultural Marxism (xii, xiii, 13-15, 91).

The only solution to society’s slide into increasing moral chaos, according to Metaxas, is for a new crop of Dietrich Bonhoeffer-like church leaders to rise up and protest – violently, if need be (more on this below) – against the country’s drift toward cultural oblivion. Metaxas’ biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer figures as the major source for this book’s political arguments, despite the very negative reviews Metaxas’ biography received from Bonhoeffer specialists. (see here, here, and here).

According to Metaxas, Bonhoeffer described a three-point solution to both Germany’s and America’s problems in his essay, “The Church and the Jewish Question.” They are [1] as the conscience of the state, the church must loudly protest against government wrong-doing; [2] the church must assist the victims of immoral state policies; and [3] if the state refuses to change its course, then the church must embrace political activism, shoving “a stick in the spokes” of the “rumbling machine of the state” (39).

The body of Letter to the American Church excoriates evangelical leaders for withdrawing from their obligation to agitate for public morality and, instead, cocooning themselves in an exclusive focus on evangelism. Metaxas’ attacks against “the idol of evangelism” (75-85) provide an important reminder (very positively, in my view) of the inherently offensive nature of the gospel and how easy it is for preachers to avoid difficult subjects like sin and judgment in order not to “offend” their listeners.

Unfortunately, Metaxas conflates his (a) justified critique of timid preachers who knowingly compromise the gospel message with (b) a highly dubious attack against evangelical leaders who will not rally their congregations to become outspoken, right-wing, Republican political agitators. Aside from Metaxas’ remarkable blindness to his own political, as opposed to truly Christian, partisanship, his apparent ignorance of American church history is surprising.

I can only assume that in wanting to write “a book for the moment,” Metaxas has restricted the horizons of his historical interest to the rise of Donald Trump and events subsequent to the 2016 presidential election. His complaints about evangelicalism’s political lethargy not only ignore the long, activist history of the Religious Right – a movement that finally threw its weight behind Trump’s campaign and carried him to victory – but seems to know nothing about the long history of evangelical activism in progressive politics, represented by people like Jim Wallis and the Sojourners’ community.

But then, Metaxas suggests that all Christians with a progressive political bent have been deceived by Satan, so their activism only contributes to the cultural Marxist dangers threatening America.

Metaxas also appears to be unaware of the wide stream of American dispensational evangelicalism-fundamentalism, going back at least to the early nineteenth century, that actively discourages Christians against political activism. Shunning politics hardly originated with those contemporary pastors now intent on putting out the fires of political divisiveness consuming their congregations.

But Metaxas is clearly in favor of churches dividing over partisan politics. In an obvious reference to MAGA-enamored churchgoers leaving congregations where their politics are not sufficiently affirmed, Metaxas says, “Many Christians are abandoning such churches for the few that are alive to the situation, where the pastors are less timid about saying what needs to be said” (36).

Certainly, the most disturbing aspect of Metaxas’ book is its subtle yet clear justification of violence for political ends. The argument is carefully, if subtly, constructed.

First, Dietrich Bonhoeffer is Metaxas’ model of Christian virtue not only because he openly criticized the Nazi regime – along with many others; Bonhoeffer was not alone in doing this – but because Bonhoeffer participated in a plot to assassinate Hitler. It is Bonhoeffer’s willingness to embrace violence as a political weapon, the very definition of terrorism, that makes Bonhoeffer a hero to Metaxas. And this is the exemplary aspect of Bonhoeffer’s life that Metaxas clearly wants his readers to emulate, for “Bonhoeffer understood that to eschew violence whenever possible did not mean that it was always possible” (109).

Though he never says it explicitly, the unavoidable implication of Metaxas’ argument, from beginning to end, is that faithful Christians will do whatever it takes to change society and move it in the right-wing direction of Metaxas’ preferred political agenda. This includes resorting to violence, if need be.

Metaxas lays the “biblical” groundwork for his call to violence-when-necessary with several specious arguments.

He begins by describing his Manichean view of the world. Everything is black or white. Anyone who dissents from his verdict on the evils destroying American society is categorized as “demonic,” a tool of Satan (96, 101, 113-114, 117). The American culture wars are a fight of good against evil, of divine forces against demonic opponents. As Metaxas draws up the battlefield, people like Jim Wallis (a Christian active in progressive politics) and Andy Stanley (a pastor combatting political division within his church) are on the Devil’s team.

Furthermore, Metaxas seems convinced that if society is in decline, then it must be the church’s fault. A faithful, protesting, politically active church would presumably carry the day and turn the tide of spreading immorality.

Metaxas anticipates the inevitable objections to his promotion of political violence by distorting the biblical view of God with his own (ironic!) version of “cheap grace,” the very problem Bonhoeffer famously attributed to the German church under Hitler.

According to Metaxas, God is not looking for believers who concern themselves with purity. Rather, God is seeking courageous, even reckless devotees who are willing to risk incurring guilt as they sin on God’s behalf. This component of Metaxas’ argument is so shocking that a few quotations are warranted to make the point:

Page 110 – To love unreservedly – which is God’s call to us – is to risk everything, our lives and our reputations. Bonhoeffer’s view of God’s real grace made it possible for him to trust Him completely. As long as he earnestly desired to do God’s will and acted from that motive, he knew the God of the Bible would see his heart and grant him grace, if it happened that he had erred.

Page 118 – (Bonhoeffer understood that) God was calling His people to something far above merely avoiding sins and keeping their noses clean. . . Being a Christian is not about avoiding sin, but about passionately and courageously serving God.

Page 120-21 – God is not a moralistic fussbudget or nitpicking God who is lying in wait. When we tell a lie for a larger good, He does not swoop in and say “Aha!” and condemn us. If we know who God truly is, we know that He is not against us, but for us. He is not Satan the accuser, looking for what sins He can find to condemn us. He is the gracious and loving God who sent His own Son to die so that we could be forgiven and saved. And when He sees us act in a way that is not calculated to protect ourselves but that is rather magnanimous and self-sacrificing for the sake of another, He rejoices.

In any other context, Metaxas’ words might sound innocent enough. But tied as they are to Bonhoeffer’s willingness to commit murder, Metaxas’ urgings for courageous Christians to behave radically, even to the point of knowingly engaging in sin, take on an ominous significance.

Since Bonhoeffer believed that God would forgive his role in Hitler’s attempted murder, Christians today should also understand that God will forgive them for whatever violent acts they commit in their “godly” efforts to redeem our society.

There is much more to criticize in Metaxas’ new book, but these are the most salient problems, in my view. I am sure that Metaxas would insist that I am wrong when I accuse him of fomenting political violence. He has constructed his book in such a way as to provide himself with “plausible deniability.”

But in today’s world, more specifically, in today’s America, my mind is not the only one that will read Metaxas’ book as a call-to-arms with a get-out-of-jail-free card neatly included.

So, beware the author who tells his readers that political violence can be the answer, describing it as a courageous act of the truly spiritual person who will be forgiven by God.

A Bizarre Christian Nationalist Pledge of Allegiance

I came across this very odd video clip recently filmed at a 7 Mountains of Influence conference. (I don’t know where or when). If you have never heard of this movement before, check out these websites (here, here, here).

The 7 mountains folks are part of what is called the “dominionist”

The 7 mountains of influence to be conquered for the kingdom of God

movement with the (primarily Pentecostal-fundamentalist) wing of the Christian church. They mistakenly imagine that the kingdom of God is expanded as Christians gain power and influence in worldly affairs, e.g., the 7 mountains of influence.

My book, I Pledge Allegiance: A Believer’s Guide to Kingdom Citizenship in 21st Century America (Eerdmans, 2018) demonstrates just how misguided and destructive is this way of thinking.

If you haven’t read my book yet, you really should.

Below is a segment filmed at a 7 Mountains conference. It includes something I can only describe as a “Christian Nationalist Pledge of Allegiance.”

I won’t apologize for saying that its identification of God’s kingdom with the United States is pure blasphemy.

Not only is this public exercise extremely bizarre, it breaks my heart to see how easily these false leaders (who call themselves “apostles”!) mislead large segments of the church into false teaching.

If you know anyone who is involved with this blasphemous malarky, please point out the error of their ways.

The video title, “Christofascists Want to Overthrow U.S. Democracy to Install a Theocracy,” is an accurate description of this movement’s objectives.

Also, forgive the host’s profanity. I can’t blame him for being shocked. But, really, profanity is not an inappropriate response to the 8 and 1/2 minutes of collective profanity spewed throughout the auditorium on screen.

Focus on the segment beginning at the 5:30 minute mark continuing through to 14:00.

Two Different Perspectives on the Buffalo Shootings. Which Makes More Sense?

(The photos throughout this post display only some of the victims of the mass shooting in Buffalo.)

Below I have posted two very different analyses of the recent mass shooting committed by a young white supremacist in Buffalo, NY.

They are both fairly brief. So, watch both and then rejoin me at the bottom to read my own thoughts about each perspective. I will try to keep my comments as short as possible.

If you want to explore this issue further with me, just make a comment on the blog page. I always respond as quickly as possible.

The first is an editorial from the Christian Broadcasting Network titled “How Americans Can Prevent More Mass Shootings.” The second is an interview from the alternative news program Democracy Now titled “Lessons for Buffalo? Meet the Activist Who Sued the White Supremacists Behind Charlottesville & Won.”

My response. (I’ll give you a heads up — I disagree with everything in the CBN editorial. The Jewish granddaughter of Holocaust survivors makes much more sense and offers far better suggestions for change):

Celestine Chaney

We must begin by noting CBN’s utter neglect of the white supremacist ideology that motivated the Buffalo murders. It only mentions that he had “come under the spell of others” briefly as if he were unwittingly seduced my mysterious, dark forces.

The fact that the shooter wrote a very lengthy online manifesto declaring both his hatred of African-Americans and brown-skinned immigrants as well as his plans to commit a mass shooting are conveniently ignored.

Consequently, the obvious questions for local law enforcement as to how in

Ruth Whitfield

the world a young white supremacist, spewing vitriol, who had previously been brought in for questioning after threatening to commit a local school shooting, are nowhere within earshot.

The idea that his young man had personal agency and willingly embraced his racist ideology is also buried very deeply. My suspicion is that CBN’s right-wing Republican political stance is on full display in this editorial decision.

Roberta Drury

More than that, I suspect that CBN producers regularly consult with Republican party leaders to gather the newest party “talking points.” The Republicans are very busy working to separate their public image from violent racism at the moment — while continuing openly to embrace this evil on the campaign trail, especially when visiting Mara Lago to kiss Trump’s ring — so CBN was almost certainly told to keep

Heyward Patterson

this issue hidden beneath their tight fitting neocon helmet.

Unsurprisingly, the idea of tougher gun laws is put to bed immediately. The implication is crystal clear: restrictive gun laws do not work in limiting gun violence. The spokesman rightly points out that NY state already has very restrictive gun laws, but those laws did not prevent this shooting.

Aaron Salter

At this point, CBN demonstrates the complete absence of “fact-checkers” in the news room. It’s been widely reported that the NY shooter crossed the state line and purchased the guns and ammunition used in the shooting from a Massachusetts gun shop.

The obvious implication — at least, it appears obvious to my feeble mind — is the need for greater uniformity in US gun laws beginning with a nation-wide, federal ban on all semi-automatic rifles. The shooter ought not have been able to purchase his murderous implements anywhere in the country.

But then, on second thought, perhaps there are fact-checkers at CBN, but the powers-that-be decided to manipulate their conservative, anti-gun law viewers with gross misinformation, which are in fact, outright lies.

If this is the case, then so much for the Christian morality and integrity that the editorialist beats the drum about towards the editorial’s conclusion.

The heart of the problem, according to CBN, is American immorality, most profoundly displayed in the absence of any generally maintained “Christian world-view” among American church-goers.

I have an earlier post criticizing this particular red herring, so I won’t repeat myself here. You can read the previous post if interested.

Geraldine Talley

This supposed lack of a robust Christian world-view among American Christians then becomes a launching pad for the standard, conservative lament about the egregious moral decline of our society, as if we all now inhabit the historic, indecent nadir of US moral degeneracy.

Here it becomes obvious that along with the absent fact-checkers, neither are there any American historians in the CBN editorial room.

But the standard tropes are trotted out once again. The two successive turning points for America’s irreligious degradation are the well-known bobbsy twins of US degeneracy: the outlawing of prayer in our public schools (a ruling that strangely never affected me during my public school career, since I prayed regularly in school without difficulty or interruption), and the Supreme Court ruling of Roe vs. Wade.

As a direct result of these two legal decisions, the United States began a

Pearl Young

rapid descent into indecency and flagrant wickedness that has swept the nation and now instigates young, white men like the Buffalo shooter to “randomly” mow down black Americans with a semi-automatic rifle in the local grocery’s produce aisle.

Does that make sense to you? I must confess that it totally baffles me.

Naturally, by the end of CBN’s ahistorical and irrational monologue it all comes down to the failure of parents, meaning that the obvious solution is to, once again, “focus on the family.”

Cultivating stronger, more godly families is, as always, the social, cultural, political, religious panacea needed to solve the problems of white supremacy and gun violence in this country of ours.

More Christian parents, promoting the properly Biblical world-view, taking greater responsibility for the spiritual nurture of their children becomes the one-size-fits-all remedy for everything that ails America.

It’s just that simple.

Or is it? Come back tomorrow for part two of my response to these two videos. I’ve got a lot more to say…unsurprisingly. But I think that this post is already long enough.

Thanks for sticking with me.

D. L. Moody, Slavery, And More Discussion of Church Unity

Not long ago I had conversation with two old friends about a topic I have written about previously on this blog (here and here): regaining a unified church after Donald Trump’s presidency.

Their church has essentially undergone a split, both numerically and spiritually, sparked by the contentious political debates fomented around president Trump and his “America first” policies.

One of my friends, who is a staff member at the church, explained the various efforts – including programs focusing on collective reconciliation – the church leadership has been pursuing.

She lamented that, so far, nothing has proven particularly successful. Many members who left the church (mainly Trump devotees) appear to be gone for good. Political antagonisms remain. They are now sublimated beneath the surface of their community’s life, but they continue to be subtly divisive.

Of course, I felt compelled to offer my perspective. I won’t repeat it here; you can reread by previous two posts if you want to catch up. Let me just say that I am not a great fan of this prevalent urge “to reclaim the old church community.” I believe that it is fundamentally misguided, and I told them so (in a nice way; really, I was nice).

However, I was more than a little insulted when they both laughed in my face. (I am not exaggerating.) Their message was clear: “Oh there goes crazy David again with his weird ideas about the church! Don’t you know that church unity is essential?!”

As you can guess, this part of our conversation went nowhere. And I will admit that my thinking on this matter will undoubtedly sound “weird” to many, but then the Bible can be a very weird book.

The problem, as I see it, is that those, like my friends, who remain emotionally distraught over the supposed “loss” of church unity, generated by the politics of Donald Trump and his MAGA movement, are chasing after the wrong goal.

They have set their eyes on an abstract concept of Christian togetherness, instantiated for them in the physical presence of familiar faces, when they should be “setting their eyes of Jesus” (Hebrews 12:2) and what it means for Him to be glorified.

These two objectives are very, very different.

Let me explain what I mean by sharing a few thoughts recently prompted by a book which has motivated me to write about this topic one more time.

**********

Dwight L. Moody (1837-1899) was the nineteenth century equivalent of the

Dwight L. Moody

evangelist Billy Graham throughout the English-speaking world.

As a young man in Boston, Moody had been a committed abolitionist actively agitating for the end of slavery in America. But as his revivalist career began to develop, and he became more and more well-known, Moody was faced with a challenge.

The remarkable book by historian Edward J. Blum, Reforging the White Republic: Race, Religion, and the American Nationalism 1865-1989 (Louisiana State University, 2005), lucidly explains the nature of Moody’s challenge and the ominous political, social, cultural challenges that confronted every public, religious figure in the aftermath of the Civil War.

That challenge concerned the unity of God’s American church.

The Civil War had embedded a seemingly permanent split between the northern and southern branches of American Christianity. Bridging that gap and healing those wounds, bringing the church together again as one unified, national community, was a major concern all throughout American society at the time.

A large number of national, Christian leaders, including Moody, decided that solving this problem meant that all political discussions must be set aside. This included any mention of slavery, black equality, or human rights. Instead, pastors and evangelists were to focus only on the “spiritual” demands of personal salvation and individual piety.

To further calm these divided waters and work towards unity between the north and south, Moody segregated his southern revivals in order not to offend southern churchgoers. After the war, he would openly praise “the lost cause” otherwise known as the southern rebellion. Unsurprisingly, a majority of black churchgoers, their friends and family boycotted Moody’s crusades.

Black leaders like Frederick Douglas and Ida B. Wells excoriated Moody’s betrayal of Christian morality for the sake of unifying the white church. One “negro” representative at an annual conference of the African Methodist Episcopal church wrote:

(Moody’s) conduct toward the Negro’s during his southern tour has been shameless, and I would not have him preach in a barroom, let alone a church.”

Frederick Douglas said (among many other things) of Moody’s segregated revivals:

Of all the forms of Negro hate in this world, save me from that one which clothes itself with the name of loving Jesus.

Ida B. Wells also condemned Moody for his version of “Jim Crow revivalism.”

Blum concludes that Moody’s Jim Crow strategy for church unity proved to be a major factor in the eventual reunion of northern and southern all white churches by the close of the nineteenth century:

Highlighting social consensus at the expense of social reform, Moody’s revivals contributed to the. . . spiritual justification to an ethnic nationalism centered upon whiteness.

Yes, white churches rediscovered unity across the Mason-Dixon line, but at what cost? Was it the type of unity Christ wants for his people? We dare not forget who was finally excluded from this long-sought unity.

Moody abandoned his previous Christian principles in order to accomplish a sociological result.

Consequently, Moody helped to infuse a permanent state of all pervasive segregation throughout the white and black churches in both the north and the south. Something that had not been true before the war.

But what Moody accomplished was not unity but a pernicious, intractable brand of sectarian division within the church.

Moody also helped to banish social reform and the ethics of political/social behavior from the evangelical vocabulary. His focus on personal piety at the expense of public, political ethics is still keeping evangelical churches on the sidelines of today’s continuing conversations about racial inequality.

This unbiblical separation of the spiritual from the political also continues to infect today’s efforts at reuniting the post-Trump, evangelical church.

Learning to tolerate opposing political opinions is a far cry from grappling with the outlandish moral failures exemplified in many of those opinions and their resulting policies. The first is called learning to live like an adult. The second is called learning to think and behave like a genuine disciple of Jesus Christ.

By refusing to talk about slavery; by failing openly to condemn the enslavement of fellow human beings; by embracing pro-slavery brothers and sisters into all white churches without any expectation of confession and repentance, Moody and those like him became guilty, not only of rank moral failure, but of an egregious betrayal of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Misguided obsessions with unity for unity’s sake are replicating similar mistakes today. Seeing “Trumpers” and “Non-Trumpers” worshiping together again, in their pre-2016 blissfulness, is a fool’s dream about a bogus, vanilla brand of artificial fellowship.

Now is the time to talk about Christian ethics, both public and private, political, social, and cultural. This is the conversation that ought to take center-stage in any genuine attempt at church unity.

Was supporting Donald Trump and his policies a moral position for any of God’s people to take? Yes, or no? Defend yourself from scripture, chapter and verse.

Obviously, people will remain divided, but the substance of the divisions will have been altered; they will become clear: these are now ethical, moral fault- lines created by different understandings of Jesus Christ, the nature of the Good News, the arrival of God’s kingdom, and what Jesus requires of his followers.

Not everyone will want to hang around once the “political” differences are described in this absolutely necessary, moral framework. People may leave to attend other churches. Let them.

So what?

Moody’s slovenly strategy for church unity was a pig in a poke.

Once again, the church is being sifted. It happens. For cryin’ out loud, don’t we remember what the apostle Paul said?

The time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. (2 Timothy 4:3)

No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. (1 Corinthians 11:19)

“False Presence of the Kingdom”, by Jacques Ellul

In 1963, Jacques Ellul published a sequel to his earlier work, The Presence of the Kingdom. Ellul’s second discussion of the nature and significance of the

Jacques Ellul

kingdom of God was titled, False Presence of the Kingdom.

Having used the earlier book to lay out his understanding of what the kingdom of God is and how the Christian church ought to be living within that kingdom, Ellul now goes on to diagnose what he believes are the most common misunderstandings and misappropriations of the New Testament kingdom theology.

As always, Ellul gives today’s reader a lot to think about and to digest, most of it rather uncomfortable but absolutely necessary and, hopefully, not entirely indigestible.

Below is today’s excerpt from Jacques Ellul’s False Presence of the Kingdom (all emphasis mine). I quote a section where Ellul focuses on the classic distinction between fact and value and the modern error of assuming that facts have a self-evident, intrinsic value of their own.

By the way, as I write this, I am thinking of several recent conversations with fellow Christians who said things to me that are perfect examples of the problem Ellul is critiquing:

If one attributes inherent value to fact, and if the moment the fact exists it is useless to bring an ethical or spiritual judgment to bear upon it, then I say that this should be carried to its logical conclusion. Capitalism? It’s a fact. War? It’s a fact. Parachutists? It’s a fact. Torture? That’s a gross fact. . . One is quite simply hypocritical and dishonest in advancing the argument that one is faced with a fact, and that moral judgment is to be avoided on that account.

 There remains, moreover, the question why one employs that argument. The answer, alas, is easy. . . one avoids debate by eliminating the moral problem on the ground that facts elude such judgment. . . (If) a fact is a final value, one yields to the fact. Nothing can be done about it. Whenever, in an ordinary argument, one person is able to say to the other: “First of all, it’s a fact,” there is nothing to be said in reply.

 To give up passing judgment on a fact, to assume that all one can do from then on is to yield to it, to adjust to it, that is precisely and totally to abandon the Christian life in its entirety. There is no position more radically anti-Christian than to give way to a fact. It is to accept fate. It is to agree that the material factor is the determining one. It is to agree that the Christian life is nothing but a morality. At the same time, it is a renunciation of spiritual discernment, and of the possibility of injecting truth into the context of reality.

 That entails enormous consequences, which, to be sure, are never foreseen by those Christians who think they are realists because they announce: “It’s a fact.” . . . (Such) Christians obey the world’s logical inconsistencies. Their thinking is so unstable that the very ones who accept fact as final judgment in matters of technology, progress, mass culture, economic growth, urbanization, etc., are the same ones who reject fact in the case of colonialism or of the present government. But perhaps, again, this is nothing but a conformism . . .

 Once again, let’s make it clear that it is no part of our thinking to deny the facts, or to say that they do not have to be taken into account. What we are saying is simply that it is a gross intellectual error to transform fact into a value, to conceive of fact as being or as containing a value in and of itself. We are saying it is a gross moral error to renounce judging a fact, that is a gross spiritual error to urge man to bow before fact, that is to say, before the fatality of whatever exists.

I used to have a personal mantra that I would repeat to myself in times of difficulty. I’d say too myself:

I will only deal with what’s real in order to strive for God’s ideal.

That’s what Ellul is talking about. What’s your kingdom mantra?

“The Presence of the Kingdom” by Jacques Ellul

I visited Grand Rapids, Michigan last month, and I did what I always do when I travel; I checked out the used bookstores!

This trip, I picked up two books by the French, Christian thinker, professor, philosopher, Jacques Ellul which were new to me.

Jacques Ellul (1912 – 1994)

If you’ve never read Ellul, you need to begin today.

You’ll find few Christian writers as thoughtful and penetrating in his deconstruction of the modern world, its technological idols, and what it means for a Christian to follow Jesus faithfully through the maze of an ever evolving and broken society.

Rather than write up two book reviews for my readers, I decided to post a few excerpts to give you the flavor of each book, both about the kingdom of God.

Naturally, I never agree with everything Ellul says. I don’t even agree with myself much of the time! But I am always challenged and stimulated, often in a surprising, back-handed way, to think about the issues more deeply.

I hope you will be challenged too.

The first book I am excerpting today is Ellul’s 1948 publication titled, The Presence of the Kingdom (all emphasis is mine):

. . . The Christian is constantly obliged to reiterate the claims of God, to re-establish this God-willed ‘order,’ in presence of an order which constantly tends towards disorder. In consequence of the claims which God is always making on the world the Christian finds himself (sic), by that very fact, involved in a state of permanent revolution. Even when the institutions, the laws, the reforms which he has advocated have been achieved, even if society be re-organized according to his suggestions, he still has to be in opposition, he still must exact more, for the claim of God is a infinite as His forgiveness. Thus, the Christian is called to question unceasingly all that man calls progress, discovery, facts, established results, reality, etc. He can never be satisfied with all this human labour, and in consequence he is always claiming that it should be transcended, or replaced by something else.

 In his judgment he is guided by the Holy Spirit – he is making an essentially revolutionary act. If the Christian is not being revolutionary, then in some way or another he has been unfaithful to his calling in the world. . .

 . . . Thus, one who knows that he has been saved by Christ is not a man jealously and timidly attached to a past, however glorious it may be. He does not cling to the past of his Church (tradition), nor even to the past life of Jesus Christ (on which, however, the certainty of his faith depends) – but he is a man of the future…of the eschaton, of the coming break with this present world…All facts acquire their value in the light of the coming Kingdom of God, in the light of the Judgment, and the victory of God. . .

 . . . This theological truth also applies to social and political facts. The actual events of our world only acquire their value in the light of the coming Kingdom of God. It is the imminent return of Christ which gives genuine seriousness to each actual event . . . Without this direction history is an outbreak of madness. Now in this matter the Christian has no right to keep this truth to himself; by his action and by his thought it is his duty to bring the ‘coming event’ into the life of this present world. . . Every Christian who has received the Holy Spirit is now a prophet of the Return of Christ, and by this very fact he has a revolutionary mission in politics. . .

 . . . To be revolutionary is to judge the world by its present state, by actual facts, in the name of a truth which does not yet exist (but which is coming) – and it is to do so because we believe this truth to be more genuine and more real than the reality which surrounds us. Consequently, it means bringing the future into the present as an explosive force. . .

What’s Wrong with Promoting “A Christian World-View?” The Answer is Everything

Let’s begin by watching this short clip from the Christian Broadcasting Network interviewing pollster George Barna who offers dire warnings about the imminent dangers let loose by American Christians’ lack of a Biblical world-view.

The CBN video clip is titled “Few Professed Christian Parents Hold a Biblical World-View.”

 

Frankly, I have never been a fan of the idea that Christian’s must hold onto a well-developed “Biblical world-view.”

For many years I taught at a college that required all incoming freshmen to take a class intended to press upon their young minds the details of a Reformed world-view. I was never a fan of that curriculum decision, either, and I spoke out against it at the time.

As a Christian educator, my basic objection – which I will elaborate below – had to do with the difference between education vs. indoctrination.

A basic principle of all good education, including a so-called Christian education, I believe, is to grasp the crucial distinction between teaching a person how to think as opposed to indoctrinating a person into what to think.

Focusing on the maintenance and preservation of a “Christian” or “Biblical” world-view places the emphasis on indoctrination rather than on learning how to think for oneself. This is why indoctrination so often fails once the pressures, expectations, and boundaries of homelife and college performance are finally lifted.

In all likelihood, that young mind will eventually decide that he/she has outgrown the days of being told what to think and believe.

Young adults have agency. They are not robots. Mr. Barna’s facile insistence that every young person who lacks an adequate Christian world-view is necessarily the derelict product of parental failure is both glib and harsh. It is also offensive.

The church is filled with a wide variety of adults with very different views on parenting. Of course, the church has always had its share of hypocrites, which is certainly noticed by the community’s young people.

I observed a great deal of hypocrisy while growing up in the church. Yet, I eventually decided to devote my life to following Jesus. Others are raised by strict, religious parents far more intent on both indoctrination and the maintenance of an indoctrinated lifestyle than mine ever were. Yet, I have watched many of them walk away from the church and abandon their youthful professions of faith.

For years I was ordained in a denomination that included an extensive Catechism (that is, an exercise in doctrinal education – a world-view – that was laid out in a question-and-answer format, typically memorized by the students) among its doctrinal statements. This Reformed version of “Sunday school” was valuable to many young people. But, trust me, I have also heard many stories over the years from others who eagerly repudiated their Catechetical confession of faith as soon as they were free to do so.

So, in my not-so-humble opinion, Mr. Barna needs to zip it when it comes to asserting simpleminded, cause-and-effect relationships between parental responsibility and the irreligious world-views of young people.

But let’s probe more deeply into the fundamental errors of such misguided insistence on the creation of a Biblical world-view.

First, I must object to the indefinite article “a.”

Barna’s discussion is typical in its assumption that there is only one, that is “A,” Biblical world-view. Just as there presumably is A Marxist world-view, or A relativistic world-view, there is supposedly A Biblical world-view.

Really?

Whose interpretation of the Bible are we talking about? The original, ancient Biblical world-view insisted that the earth was flat, and that rain fell from an ocean of water contained somewhere in the sky, to mention only a few of its “Biblical” principles. Should “faithful” parents teach these archaic, anti-scientific notions to their children?

Furthermore, who draws the boundaries distinguishing (1) a properly Biblical world-view from (2) a tendentious cultural world-view?

For the vast majority of American evangelicals such cultural artifacts as raw individualism, inalienable rights to private property, unregulated capitalism, and US style “democracy” are all self-evident, necessary ingredients of a truly Biblical world-view.

But are they? Really?

So, the many thousands, if not millions, of faithful Christians throughout western history who espoused Christian socialism (like Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer), defended the divine right of kings (like John and Charles Wesley), or insisted that true Christian faith demanded communal living where all goods are held in common (like many, early Pietists) – they were all deluded by defective world-views that sadly led their children astray?

Who exactly decides THE one legitimate Biblical world-view? Who draws its boundaries? Who makes the final, authoritative distinction between the necessary, Biblical truths and the unnecessary, peripheral cultural add-ons? And whose Biblical truths become THE Biblical truths?

Personally, I have never heard these unavoidable questions addressed adequately in any of the conversations I have listened to or read that promoted this idea of a “Biblical world-view.”

And this is a big part of the reason why I think the entire conversation about world-views is bunk.

My most radical critique, however, drilling down to the most fundamental error of world-view thinking, is the neglect of discipleship.

Yep, I know that world-view advocates will protest here. They insist that possessing a Biblical world-view IS fundamental to Christian discipleship, and a large majority of the evangelical church agrees, in principle.

But this is precisely where the American church goes astray. Because the real focal point of Christian discipleship is Jesus, the crucified, resurrected Galilean.

Disciples know Jesus personally. They follow after Jesus closely. They submit the entirety of their lives to Jesus’ Lordship, and they want to conform their lives to Jesus’ own pattern of living and instruction.

Genuine discipleship is not acquired by memorizing theological principles, nor by mastering critiques of alternative world-views, nor by learning the right way “to think” about life’s questions.

Disciples are made through submission and obedience to the crucified Savior who becomes so loved and adored by the sinners he has saved that they will do anything he asks of them, no matter how odd, counter-cultural, counter-intuitive, offensive, or difficult it may be.

Many of the most serious disciples may never be able to articulate a coherent, integrated “world-view,” at least not to Mr. Barna’s satisfaction. But they will know the living Jesus and follow Him faithfully to the bitter end.

Certainly, genuine discipleship requires Bible study. But the focus of that study turns from learning doctrinal proof-texts to focus on the absorption of stories and lessons about Jesus’ shocking lifestyle among society’s most marginalized.

The focus turns to Jesus’ ethical teachings about selfless love, radical obedience, personal sacrifice, self-denial, anti-materialism, simplicity, generosity, sharing, and absolute allegiance to the resurrected Lord, even to the point of dying for Him, if necessary.

For much of my adult life I have been convinced that one of the great failings of the American church has been its preference for teaching the theological complexities of the apostle Paul rather than exploring Jesus’ outrageous moral requirements.

A proper, Christian world-view only emerges in the hearts and minds of those who wake up every morning with a renewed commitment to follow hard after Jesus, to become more and more like Jesus, to love Jesus with all the sincerity of someone who has pledged herself to “obey all of Jesus’ commandments.”

Does my alternative to world-view thinking give us a guaranteed, uniform answer to every philosophical question? Does it keep us all on the same page about knowing how to address life’s problems? Of course not.

But it does set us on the right path.

It does clarify that the heart and soul of the Christian life is not so much about what we know as it is about who we love and the way we live.

It does make us real Christians, not fakes.

It does put us in touch with God’s voice as He speaks through His Word, both through the words of holy Scripture as well as the words of His one and only holy Son.

And oh, my goodness, what a difference it would make in this world if the church were to prioritize wholesale obedience to our suffering Savior Jesus Christ – even to the point of our own suffering and death – as its number one value. The supposed need for a Biblical world-view would vanish in an instant.

Did You Know that America was Hitler’s Main Model for The Nazis’ Nuremberg Laws?

I recently read James Q. Whitman’s eye-opening book, Hitler’s American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law (Princeton, 2017).

No school teacher had ever explained to me that during the second half of the 19th century and first half of the 20th century the USA was THE most officially racist country in the world.

What Whitman demonstrates is not only that our Southern states had racist Jim Crow laws intended to disenfranchise anyone who was not white from exercising their constitutional rights as citizens. But beyond that, the entire country, both north and south, was governed by an elaborate system of laws, ordinances, and regulations legislating three vital arenas of citizenship: immigration law, citizenship law, and marriage law. And these laws were far more restrictive than those found in any other country.

These were “the Big Three,” the three legislative arenas that made the good ole’ US of A the most racist nation in the world.

As state legislatures around this country continue to make new laws banning the teaching of Critical Race Theory – even in places where it is not being taught! – I wish that my public education had included the historical information laid out in Whitman’s important book.

Below is an excerpt from Hitler’s American Model. I urge you to read the entire book for yourself. I will make a few comments after the excerpt:

On June 5, 1934, about a year and a half after Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of the Reich, the leading lawyers of Nazi Germany gathered at a meeting to plan what would become the Nuremberg Laws, the notorious anti-Jewish legislation of the Nazi race regime…The meeting involved detailed and lengthy discussions of the law of the United States. In the opening minutes, Justice Minister Gürtner presented a memo on American race law, which had been carefully prepared by the officials of the ministry for purposes of the gathering; and the participants returned repeatedly to the American models of racist legislation in the course of their discussions. It is particularly startling to discover that the most radical Nazis present were the most ardent champions of the lessons that American approaches held for Germany…Indeed in Mein Kampf Hitler praised America as nothing less than “the one state” that had made progress toward the creation of a healthy racist order of the kind the Nuremberg Laws were intended to establish. (1-2)

This too is a part of American history.

There is only one way to teach this history: straightforwardly and honestly. Hiding it, ignoring it only perpetuates the cultural deformities that gave overt racism so much power over our society in the first place.

Yes, every student in an American classroom needs to learn about this part of our story. Yes, courses in Critical Race Theory must continue in colleges, universities, and law schools. Efforts at teaching multiculturalism and inclusion must continue unabated, from our elementary schools on up.

The fact that so many are now fighting against such educational efforts to make the full spectrum of America’s racist history known is, perhaps, the nation’s loudest bellwether proving that America is, in fact, an anti-Christian nation.

Genuine followers of Jesus want to know the truth, the truth about themselves and the truth about the world around them.

Genuine followers of Jesus are more devoted to their citizenship in the kingdom of God and the ethics of Jesus than they are to the mythologies or civic religions of any earthly nation-state, including the one they live in.

Genuine followers of Jesus willingly confess the ugly truths about themselves, their heritage, families, and societies. This is because genuine followers of Jesus are in the habit of confessing their sins and seeking forgiveness from both God and others.

Genuine followers of Jesus eagerly work to make amends to those who have been injured by the consequences of whatever evils their heritage has inflicted onto others.

Genuine followers of Jesus, inasmuch as it is possible, seek reconciliation and work for justice in their relationships with those around them.

The disturbing fact that so many ostensibly “Christian” leaders are in the forefront of this current culture war campaign to hide the story of how America triumphantly won the crown as the world’s most officially racist country, tells us a lot about how unimportant the crucified Jesus truly is to American evangelicalism.