A lot of this post (though not all of it) first appeared on X.
—
When John Calvin described the office of pastor, he centered the pastor’s work on the three marks of the church: pastors are to faithfully preach God’s Word, rightly administer the sacraments, and seek the proper application of discipline. But Calvin believed the pastor had a wider and broader role, not only ministering to the needs of his own congregation, but to applying God’s Word to the whole community in which his congregation lived.
Calvin said, “Life is not dearer to me the holy bond, to which is annexed the public welfare of our city.”
By “holy bond,” Calvin meant the Spiritual bond between a pastor and the members of his flock. He loved his congregation and sought to serve them well as the core of his pastoral calling. But the faithful pastor’s concern extends beyond the health of his sheep to the “public welfare” (or common good) of the whole city.
In other words, for Calvin, the pastor is not only concerned with the ecclesiastical sphere, but with the social, political, and cultural life of the city/state/nation. The pastor is not only concerned with the Great Commission but also the Creation Mandate (aka the Cultural Mandate). The pastor not only aims at individual sanctification but social sanctification. To put it bluntly, for Calvin, the pastorate is a quasi-political office. The pastor is to lead his people in being salt and light. He does not usurp the work of magistrates, fathers, or other spheres, but his teaching and application of God’s Word shapes the way other Christians fill these spheres.
For example, Calvin’s teaching on marriage shaped the public policy of the city council with regard to marital disputes and divorce. Calvin’s teaching on parenting and discipleship shaped the educational sphere in Geneva. Calvin’s exegetical work on usury eventually transformed economic policy. And so on.
As Ronald Wallace puts it, Calvin believed the reformation of the church would lead to the reconstruction and transformation of society: Calvin was “convinced that the challenge and power of the gospel must be allowed to cleanse regenerate and direct not only the human heart, but every aspect of social life on earth — family affairs, education, economics, and politics. Christ sought not only an altar in the human heart for his priestly ministry, but a throne at the center of all human life for his kingly ministry.” Thus, Calvin worked “to bring the power of the gospel to bear fully on the life of the city.”
The Anglican priest William Temple once said, “The church is only institution that exists for the sake of her non-members.” Calvin would have embraced this, with various qualifications. The true church is the missional church. The church is called to pour out her life for the sake of the world. This does not mean a pastor can neglect the discipleship of his people for the sake of reaching the lost or pushing various cultural projects. But it does mean the church is not merely an inward facing institution. The church must also face outward, seeking to transform the whole life of the city, state, and nation.
—
The gospel is an intrinsically political message.
This is not to say the gospel consists in particular pieces of legislation; rather it is to acknowledge that the gospel announces that the world has a new king – Jesus Christ.
The Greek term “evangelion” was used in the ancient world to announce decisive political events of a public nature, such as the ascension of a new emperor, a great military victory, the birth of a royal heir, and so forth. Some have suggested that “gospel” should be translated as “political tidings” or “public declaration.” The term was decidedly political and public in nature in the first century context. It did not announce a new religious experience on offer; it announced a new state of affairs, the dawning of new phase in the imperial narrative, a new objective reality.
To the extent that American Christians have lost sight of the intrinsically political dimension of the gospel, they have lost touch with the apostolic tradition.
The gospel is the announcement that a new world order has been established through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is God’s public service announcement. It is the announcement that “there is a new sheriff in town,” that things are now going to be in put right on earth as they are in heaven. It is the declaration of a new reality.
—
Our whole salvation is contained in Christ.
The person and work of Jesus *is* the gospel, in the most fundamental sense.
He is our Righteousness.
He is the King/Kingdom. (The early church referred to this as “autobasilea” – Jesus embodies the reign of God in himself.)
He is the Regeneration, the New Creation.
He is our New Life.
He is our Righteousness/Justification/Vindication.
He is our Perseverance.
He is our Redemption.
He is our Wisdom.
He is our Hope.
He is our Resurrection.
He is our Sanctification.
Etc.
—
You can draw your own conclusions based on our current situation, but when a nation has one bad ruler after another, the people of that nation should ask, “Maybe it’s us. Maybe we are the problem.” When you elect rulers of different parties and keep getting the same results, you have to ask hard questions. Sooner or later (as Calvin said) a nation gets the rulers it deserves. And God will give nations bad rulers to punish them. Or he will make otherwise good rulers do dumb things in order to punish them (2 Sam. 24:1).
—
An old post recycled because I love it so much:
Once upon a time, American Presbyterians had backbones. This is from A. A. Hodge in 1890:
“If Christ is really king, exercising original and immediate jurisdiction over the state as really as He does over the Church, it follows necessarily that the general denial or neglect of His rightful lordship, any prevalent refusal to obey that Bible which is the law-book of His kingdom, must be followed by political and social as well as moral and religious ruin. If professing Christians are unfaithful to the authority of their Lord in their capacity as citizens of the state, they cannot expect to be blessed by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in their capacity as members of the Church. The kingdom of Christ is one and cannot be divided in life or in death. If the Church languishes, the state cannot be in health, and if the state rebels against its Lord and King, the Church cannot enjoy His favor. If the Holy Spirit is withdrawn from the Church He is not present in the state, and if He, the only “Lord and Giver of Life,” be absent, then all order is impossible and the elements of society lapse backward to primeval night and chaos.
Who is responsible for the unholy laws and customs of divorce which have been in late years growing rapidly like a constitutional cancer, through all our social fabric?… Who is responsible for the new doctrines of secular education which hand over the very baptized children of the church to a monstrous propagandism of naturalism at atheism? Who is responsible for the new doctrine that the state is not a creature of God and owes him no allegiance, thus making the mediatorial headship of Christ an unsubstantial shadow and his kingdom an unreal dream?…
In the name of your own interests I plead with you; in the name of your treasure-houses and barns; of your rich farms and cities; of your accumulations in the past and your hopes in the future I charge you – you never will be secure if you do not faithfully maintain all the crown-rights of Jesus, the King of men. In the name of your children and their inheritance of the precious Christian civilization you in turn have received from your sires; in the name of the Christian Church — I charge you that its sacred franchise, religious liberty, cannot be retained by men who in civil matters deny their allegiance to the King. In the name of your own soul and its salvation; in the name of that adorable Victim of that bloody and agonizing sacrifice whence you draw all your hopes of salvation; by Gethsemane and Calvary — I charge you, citizens of the United States, afloat on your wide sea of politics, THERE IS ANOTHER KING, ONE JESUS: THE SAFETY OF THE STATE CAN BE SECURED ONLY IN THE WAY OF HUMBLE AND WHOLE-SOULED LOYALTY TO HIS PERSON AND OF OBEDIENCE TO HIS LAW.”
Hodge makes most of today’s “Christian nationalists” look like pansies. We have a long way to go to recover what we have lost.
—
In a recent conference talk in Sacramento and in my recent sermon on 1 Samuel 24, I asked the question: Are Christians good citizens? Here are some additional thoughts.
In order to be a good Protestant, John Calvin had to be a bad Frenchman.
In the introductory preface of Calvin’s Institutes, addressed to King of France at the time, Calvin shows he embraced the cause of Christ above the cause of his nation. He subordinated his love for his homeland to his love for Christ and church – and that reveals precisely how Calvin ordered his loves. He wrote to King Francis:
“Even though I regard my country with as much natural affection as becomes me, as things now stand, I do not much regret being excluded. Rather, I embrace the common cause of all believers, that of Christ himself – a cause completely torn and trampled in your realm today, lying as it were utterly forlorn.”
If being included in the common cause of all believers meant being excluded from his native land, so be it. That was Calvin’s practice.
Of course, natural affection for one’s country and countrymen is good and right. But to practice love for one’s country properly, it is necessary to know how to slot that love into the hierarchy of all loves. Hence, the more complicated discussion.
—
Thought on the foolishness of atheism and psalms 14 and 53 (David had plenty of time to contemplate what fools were like because he spent so much time around them):
Every single sin is an act of practical atheism. When we sin we are pretending that what we know is true is not true. We are denying in our actions what we are sure of in our hearts. Every man knows the all-glorious, righteous, and wise God exists; sin is the attempt to suppress that reality. Every single sin is an implicit attempt to kill God.
This is the ironic beauty of the gospel: sin is attempted deicide – but in order to save us from our sin, God had to let us go through with actual deicide. The cross was man’s attempt to rid the universe of God for good. But as man was trying to rid the world of God, God was saving the world.
If sin is man’s attempt to slay God, salvation is God slaying sin. But God slays sin by allowing sin to slay him. At the cross, God used man’s sin to deliver man from sin. At the very moment man was trying to drive God out of the universe, God was filling the universe with the glory of his sacrificial love.
—
The blood of Jesus can cover and forgive ANY sin.
—
Judgment begins with the house of God. Reformation does as well.
—
Preaching does not merely convey information; it conveys life. Every faithful gospel preacher can say with Jesus, “The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and Life.”
—
A little credit where credit is due. My recent sermon on Ephesians 3:14-21 drew quite a bit from the work Darrell Johnson. Johnson is really weak in some areas (e.g., Ephesians 5 on marriage) but he has grasped a the heart of the letter’s message really well and he has clever formulations.
—
From my 6/4/25 email to my congregation:
In the world’s calendar, this is “Pride month.” Thankfully, this public celebration of perversion seems to have lost some momentum, largely due to Christians and conservatives pushing back. But it’s still very visible in our culture and so I would suggest using June as “humility month” to pray specifically against sexual sins that are so rampant in our nation. Sexual sins are at the heart of much of our social dysfunction: low marriage rates, low birth rates, high divorce rates, fatherlessness, etc. It is so obvious that deviating from God’s sexual design brings misery — and yet we continue to fall for Satan’s lies. Use this month to pray for sexual fidelity in your own life; pray that marriage and family life as God designed them would be honored and embraced; pray that feminism and other ungodly movements that distort masculinity and femininity would be defeated; pray for an end to abortion; pray for the reversal of Obergefell; pray that the stronghold of pornography would be defeated; pray that no-fault divorce laws and family court laws would be reformed; pray that LGBTQ+ would be suppressed; pray that those in the grip of sexual vice would repent; and so on.
In the church’s calendar, this Sunday is Pentecost. In the old covenant, Pentecost was a feast that celebrated the spring harvest (“firstfruits”) and it was associated with the giving of the law at Sinai. In Acts 2, the Father pours out the Spirit on the church through the Son on the day of Pentecost, 50 days after Passover/Easter. The parallels between the giving of the law at Sinai and the giving of the Spirit at Zion/Jerusalem are interesting: When the law was given, 3000 people died. When the Spirit was poured out, 3000 people were saved. There was fire and thunder at Sinai and there was fire and wind in Acts 2. Leviticus 23:17 required Israel to offer firstfruits to the Lord on Pentecost; in Acts 2, the Spirit forms believers into the firstfruits of the new covenant. But Pentecost in Acts 2 has many other meanings that go beyond the parallels between the giving of the law and the giving of the Spirit. The coming of the Spirit fulfills old covenant promises (as Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 shows). It is the reversal/sanctification of Babel, as the Spirit’s gift of tongues unites people groups in Christ that were divided in Genesis 11. It is the beginning of the new creation; just as the Spirit breathed life into Adam in Genesis 2 so the Spirit breathes new life into humanity in Acts 2. It is the launching pad for the church’s mission — much of the book of Acts is the Spirit prodding and leading God’s people to take the gospel to new places. A great way to celebrate Pentecost this Sunday is by wearing red!
—
It’s true race is a binding agent for collectives but there are other agents that are stronger.
For example, everyone makes a big deal out of how blacks can advocate for their own racial group but whites are not allowed to. But the moment a black becomes conservative, he becomes persona non grata among his own raciual group. What really binds the black community together as a collective is not black skin but something more — namely voting Democrat.
What is black identity in America? Obviously a shared experience/history. To some degree, it’s culture — though a lot of black culture overlaps with whites and other groups (e.g., plenty of white kids listen to black rap and hiphop music). Maybe it means a black business owner will mainly hire only other blacks and whites often do not do this or are not allowed to (though thanks to men like Jeremy Carl, the problems with this are being exposed). Again, when people talk about black identity, what it really boils down to is that 83% of blacks vote Democrat. Even blacks who have conservative views on many issues end up voting Democrat. Its groupthink. It’s collectivism at its worst.
Part of the reason there is no “white identity” is that whites are much more ideologically and politically divided/diverse. It’s not that whites do not have identity of their own, or a culture of their own — it’s that they are really much more fragmented into subidentities and subcultures. A huge percentage of whites obviously struggle with white guilt — guilt over supposed privileges whites have in our society. But privilege should make people feel grateful, not guilty. And if whites have been guilty of various sins in the past, simply confess them, repent, and move forward. Progressives don’t know what to do with white privilege or white guilt, other than to grovel over it. Mind you, they don’t actually give up those privileges in most cases. But they will punish *other* whites for the guilt they feel.
When I have tweeted on the topic of race, and particuarly why I oppose *all* racial identity politics, I have had (presumably all) white tweeters attack me relentlessly. How can these guys who push pro-white identity politics ever hope to build white solidarity when they spend so much time attacking other whites? They managed to alienate me, a white guy who is far to the right of the normies. But this is really the problem with white identity politics: we lack a racial identity because we are divided — whites are all over the place religiously, culturally, and politically. How can whites ever hope to unify and align as a group? Apart from a massive and deep religious revival, I don’t see it happening. And race alone is not a strong enough binding agent to unite us (not should it be). We used to have a shared religion and shared experience, but that is no more. Trying to get whites to act as a collective would be like trying to get the PCA and PCUSA to reunite.
Further, the current “race war” is not really all other races against whites. It’s really progressive whites against conservative whites, with each trying to get other minority groups to come along side them as allies. Because progressives’ whole schtick is to promises minorities “free” stuff from the government, they tend to get more minorities on their side.
Just as loyalty to one’s family can become a rival to Christ, so loyalty to one’s race can become a rival. We must guard against this.
I strongly receommend reading Thomas Sowell on these issues.
—
Auron McIntyre posted:
I agree with much of the tweet, but I do wonder who told conservatives that the culture war was unwinnable.
No doubt, many premils and amils have been saying this for decades. Dispensational premils are especially noted for their pessimistic eschatology. At the same time, it should be noted that dispensationalists actually did try to fight the culture war — at least some of them did. Think of the Moral Majority back in the 80s.
Weak and cowardly Republicans also told us we couldn’t win, so at best they offered compromises that continually shifted our politics and culture to the left.
But the theological circles I have been in for 35 years now did not say this. Postmils, especially of the reconstructionist variety, never conceded that the culture war was unwinnable. In fact, while the recons had very little “real world” success back in the day, they no doubt laid the intellectual groundwork for much of the success we’ve seen in more recent years. They were operating in a negative world mindset with positive world expectations a long time ago.
I take McIntyre’s post as an admission that eschatology really does matter to politics and to the culture war. Those who are confident of victory are much more likely to attain victory. The postmil position is not only biblically rooted, it is practically effective.
—
It’s interesting that both Doug Wilson’s view (see the Antioch Declaration and his other writings) and the anti-Semite view of the far right makes the Jews the key to everything.
In Wilson’s view, their conversion is the key to the Great Commission and global blessing
In the far right anti-Semite view, the Jews’ evil/unbelief is the explainer for everything that’s wrong in the world, since they are uniquely cursed/evil.
I think both views are wrong (though the latter much worse than the former).
I don’t think the Jews post 70ad are very important one way or the other – not special blessed nor specially cursed. I do think it’s likely Romans 11 teaches a future conversion for Israel, and perhaps their conversion will be the capstone of a long process in fulfilling the Great Commission (the first in the covenant would be the last to be restored to the covenant).
It’s also interesting the same guys who think IQ is the key to salvation/sanctification don’t apply this to Jews (who have above average IQ). Jews are smart but still unsanctifiable for the most part, according to Stone Choir. By this logic, high IQs among whites means we are better, low IQs among blacks makes them worse – but they don’t apply the same metric to Jews. It’s all pretty dumb if you ask me.
—
I had an interaction with Brian Sauve over this post:
Serious question here: I don’t doubt any of the facts regarding Jewish involvement in p*rn – it’s all reprehensible and horrific. But what are we supposed to *do* with this information – besides noticing it? What’s the next step after noticing?
A further reponse:
My guess is that if we attempted to outlaw porn right now (which we should most certainly do), the most vocal and organized opposition would not come from any particular ethnic group but from women. Over a million women have Only Fans accounts and are trying to monetize their sexuality. Feminism has trained women to think of porn (along with immodesty in general, fornication/hookup culture, etc.) as a form of empowerment. If someone wanted to make a case that women are more easily deceived, look no further than the bikini and Only Fans. There has been some success at the state level with things like age verification laws. That’s a step in the right direction. But porn is both a public morals crisis and a public health crisis. Any well-constructed social order will have strong laws regarding censorship, obscenity, and public decency.
A more complete response:
Banning synagogues would not do anything to solve the porn problem as such.
Let’s just say for the sake of the argument that ethnic Jews are disproportionately involved in the porn industry – that seems to be the case. Most of those Jews are very secular and progressive, and not very religiously observant in any traditional sense. They don’t go to synagogue. Meanwhile, the most observant Orthodox Jews are extremely politically and socially conservative, oppose pornography and abortion, and vote Republican at higher rates than white evangelicals. When people point out that (a) Jews dominate the porn industry, Hollywood, etc., and (b) the Talmud says blasphemous things about Jesus, it’s important to note that two very different subgroups of Jews are being described. Those in category (a) care nothing for the Talmud and probably rarely (if ever) attend synagogue, while those who do uphold the Talmud in category (b) do not promote porn. It would be like saying Christians believe the pope is the vicar of Christ and they believe the pope is the anti-Christ – well, yes, you can find Christians who believe both things but they are not the *same* Christians. My point: many secular Jews might be a menace to society (see Brian’s Goldstein quote in the original post) but it would be inaccurate to describe all Jews the same way because Orthodox Jews and secular Jews are very different – they are basically as different as progressives and conservatives in general.
Brian’s point about banning mosques and synagogues is really more about a Christian nation rejecting religious pluralism imo. It could be understood as a general equity application of Deuteronomy 13. Obviously, one could question the wisdom/propriety of such a heavy-handed approach to other religions but there is also historic precedent in Christendom for taking this kind of action. To suggest it is not crazy – theonomists were talking about just this kind of thing 40 years ago (and anyone interested in that angle on the question should read Vern Poythress’ The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses and listen to Jim Jordan’s “Theocratic Critique of Theonomy”). In America, not only have Jewish and Muslim presence been controversial earlier in our history, even Roman Catholic immigration was highly controversial for a long time. We were founded not merely as a Christian nation, but a deeply Protestant nation. But we have not preserved that identity. We are not Christian in any meaningful sense right now. The real question we face here is can we garner the political power and will to impose a quasi-Christian social order (eg, banning porn) on a largely non-Christian populace, for their own good?
Getting back to my earlier question for Brian: it’s fine to notice Jewish involvement in the porn industry. But porn involves and impacts all of us – Jew and Gentile, male and female. My desire to ban it would not be ethnically or racially driven, as if it was the product of animosity towards Jews as a people. My desire to ban porn would stem from a desire for righteousness and the common good of our nation. If that disproportionately harms the financial living of Jews because they are disproportionately involved in porn, well, I really don’t care.
—
Paul anguished over the “pattern” of Jewish rejection of the gospel in Romans 9. He recognized certain patterns of behavior/culture among Gentiles in general (Romans 1, Ephesians 4) and Cretans in particular (Titus 1). His answer in those cases seems to have been the Great Commission – as seen in his missionary journeys, church planting, etc.
—
Society got a lot worse after Puritan pastors stopped preaching their jeremiad sermons.
—
Empathy is when you see someone drowning and in order to show them how much you love them, you jump in and drown with them
—
Wives, the Bible does not say, “submit to your emotions.” It says, “submit to your husbands.”
Many wives fight their own femininity because they think femininity is weak. Ironically, this pits them against their husbands in an unhealthy form of competition neither spouse will win. Wives would be happier – and more powerful in ways that really matter – if they surrendered to their husband’s headship and their feminine nature, rather than fighting them.
—
Civilization collapses without the rule of law.
—
While Nietzsche’s overall philosophy of life is diabolical, idolatrous, and anti-Christian, I’m actually very sympathetic with his critique of the soft, mediocre Christianity that surrounded him in 19th century Europe. Nietzsche was basically critiquing a proto-woke version of the faith, largely shaped by cultural liberalism. Calvinism should always be an exception to that kind of mediocre Christian faith. Calvinism at its best has been incredibly vital and energetic. But Calvinists don’t always live up to or live out their theological principles.
—
God can make good rulers do dumb things if he wants to punish a people, eg, 2 Samuel 24:1.
—
Christian versions of natural law NEVER meant learning morality from animals.
A text like Proverbs 6:6ff is not deriving morality from the lower creation, it’s using the lower creation to *illustrate* a principle of morality God has revealed in his Word and in his design for human life. Animals are also used to illustrate evil many places in Scripture, so obviously we cannot just go to them for lessons in morality.
—
The state cannot produce prosperity, though it can provide the preconditions for wealth creation. Prosperity is usually the fruit of freedom, hard work, and opportunity.
—
Both repentance and faith have to do with loyalty. But there are still important distinctions to be made.
The Greek word for repentance “metanoia” does literally mean “to change one’s mind.” But it’s easy for moderns to intellectualize that into mere assent — as if changing one’s mind might not lead to a new course of life, as if it might be nothing more than an intellectual or psychological exercise. In Scripture, repentance bears fruit. So I think emphasizing that it includes a change of loyalty is fitting. Repentance means changing the whole direction of your life. You do not just change your mind; your whole life orientation is changed. Your whole outlook on the world is different. The way you live your life changes. Repentance is proven by the observable change, not just an intellectual shift.
Likewise, with faith/pistis. Faith is closely associated with loyalty/allegience, as Matthew Bates has argued. But I do have concerns with Bates’ model. The core of faith is trust. It is receiving and resting in the object of faith. Growing out of that trust, of course, there is loyalty. Faith begets faithfulness, and faith is inseparable from the faithfulness (loyalty) it produces over time. But faith cannot be completely equated with (or reduced to) loyalty.
To put it another way: I am loyal to Christ precisely because I trust him to do what I cannot do for myself, to do for me what even my loyalty to him cannot do. The WCF is actually very good in its chapter on faith, in showing how faith can and must be exercised in a variety of ways — see how WCF 14.2 distinguishes the principal acts of faith from other acts of faith. When one understands what faith actually is, it is easy to see why faith is the sole instrument of union with Christ (we are united to Christ as we receive him and rest in him, as we believe *into* him), and also why this same faith produces works, begets loyalty, etc.
To add yet another aspect: Faith does not justify *because* it produces loyalty. Faith justifies because it unites us to Christ. But the same faith that unites us to Christ inevitably produces faithfulness to Christ. And without that faithfulness, faith is not saving faith. The same faith that unites us to Christ produces obedience to Christ as the fruit of that faithful union. Faith that does not lead to faithfulness is the faith of demons. To invoke James 2, while faith will produce works (faithfulness, loyalty), faith is distinguishable from its fruit.
—
In light of the Trump/Musk falling out:
Doesn’t Isaiah 3 say something about God cursing his people by causing infants and children to rule over them?
Indeed, it does. That’s how this moment feels. We are ruled by childish man-boys. As I’ve said many times, if what we have been experiencing in recent decades is the chastening rod and judgment of God, there is really no political solution. Repentance is the only way out. Repent or perish – that message applies as much to nations as to individuals.
Isaiah 3:4: And I will make boys their princes, and infants shall rule over them.
Isaiah 3:12: My people—infants are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, your guides mislead you and they have swallowed up the course of your paths.
Nothing in this post is intended to deny the many good things the Trump administration (Musk included) has accomplished. Trump is definitely preferable to the alternative. But we need to face the reality that our problems cannot be solved by changing who lives in the White House. As I’ve been saying, we cannot vote our way out of this. We cannot finance our way out of this. We cannot deport our way out of this. We should do what we can politically and economically for the good of our country, but the only way to escape Jesus’ rod of iron is to kiss the Son (Psalm 2).
—
Responding to N. T. Wright’s absurd take on abortion:
Sad to see this trash from Wright. Once upon a time, he wrote some interesting stuff on parts of the NT. But at some point the progressive gaze just got to be too much for him. He was never a social or political conservative, but he at least opposed sodomy and sodomite unions. To see him tolerate baby murder like this is just grievous.
—
Notes on Keller in response to Chase Davis’s post about Keller and the dissident right:
Keller definitely embraced critical theory – though he used it to argue for things like reparations. But the embrace of critical theory would give him a point of commonality with the Wolfite version of Christian nationalism.
Keller seemed to think Marx was pretty good on social analysis, just not the remedy.
Keller was not a natural law guy nor a theonomist. In general, his approach to politics was subordinated to pragmatic missional/evangelistic concerns.
Keller believed white people need to recognize they have a culture – that the white way of doing things is not normative or universal. I guess this makes him a race realist? But he was also pretty multicultural, especially in that he would emphasize that every culture has points of contact with the gospel and points of conflict with the gospel. His philosophy of ministry was based on finding those points of contact and tying them into the Christian story.
Keller was something of a statist who really did not care much for markets – definitely something many postliberals would go along with. Keller was pro-immigration because it’s good for evangelism.
Politically, Keller was an old school Democrat/progressive/liberal – he was not outspoken about abortion (he believed it was morally wrong, but was probably fine with a “safe, legal, rare” approach politically), he believed homosexuality was sinful but did not oppose same-sex legal unions, etc. He wanted Christians engaged in the culture but did not want Christians to ever impose their own views on others (which is why Kellerites get dragged continually to the left – they accept the Overton window and winsomeness as the rules of engagement).
Keller was on the feminist end of the complementarian spectrum. The husband is a servant-leader whose authority is reduced to breaking ties. A woman can do anything an unordained man can do. The rule that only men can be pastors is not rooted in nature or design.
Keller was a globalist rather than a nationalist. He said at one point (during his ministry in NYC) that he did not personally know a single Trump supporter (and he probably didn’t know anyone who owned a gun or drove a pickup truck either). His sensibilities about the world were entirely shaped by northeastern urban elitism. He did not have much real exposure to huge swaths of American culture.
—
The world will start to change dramatically when more churches properly celebrate Ascension Day.
Just because Rome does something doesn’t automatically make it wrong (or right). We must test all things and hold fast to that which is good. Some of Rome’s traditions are a legitimate outworking of biblical teaching; most are not. But the use of a church calendar, as a matter of wisdom rather than divine law, traces back as far we can go in church history, long before the rise of the papacy or what could properly be called the *Roman* church.
My point re: the ascension is that understanding the *present* reign of Christ is a missing piece in a great deal of evangelical teaching and preaching. Recovering Ascension Day celebrations would be a wonderful way to recapture the truth that Jesus is king right now, he is presently ruling in the midst of his enemies, and all things are being put under his feet. Plus, there is some great hymnody associated with the ascension that much of the church does not know. Recovering the day means recovering that wonderful hymnody.
—
Papal abuse of a thing does not destroy proper use. God gave old covenant Israel a calendar. They were even free to modify the calendar (Purim, Hanukkah). The general equity of the law, thus, indicates there is a prudent way to develop and use an ecclesiastical calendar as a tool of discipleship.
—
Ignatius on worship as warfare:
This is from Ignatius’ letter to the Ephesians, as he is being taken to Rome for martyrdom. He tells the church, facing persecution, if you want to break the power of Satan, keep gathering for worship in the unity of faith: “When you assemble frequently in the same place, the powers of Satan are destroyed, and the destruction at which he aims is prevented by the unity of your faith.”
—
My recent trip to California reminded me of an observation I’ve made from time to time. Progressives in California are far, far more radicalized to the left than progressives in Alabama. At the same time, conservatives in California tend to be far more to the right than most conservatives in Alabama.
I appreciate that Alabama is generally conservative, but it’s also a very diluted conservatism. It’s a do-nothing, status-quo, visionless conservatism that really doesn’t conserve much. We are drifting leftward, just slower than other places. It’s a conservatism that isn’t very educated on the core issues of the day (e.g., see our IVF debacle from last year, where our state Supreme Court gave an excellent pro-life ruling, only to have our Republican governor and legislature overturn it within a week). It’s a conservatism that can’t really even drive out obvious corruption. Why is this? I think part of the reason is that people here have very little direct experience with radical progressivism. There’s a kind of comfortable “country club conservatism” that it’s easy to settle into. There’s a good ol’ boy network that really isn’t interested in much beyond personal gain. This is a low cost, minimal commitment conservatism.
Some of the most right wing, anti-statist people I’ve known were Cuban immigrants or Eastern European immigrants who had seen firsthand the damage Communism can do. My guess is that’s kind of what it’s like if you’re a conservative in California: you see the damage the left can do so you want to push against it harder. The left is an existential threat. Meanwhile, conservatives in Alabama really don’t have that experience. The problem we have in Alabama is our conservative don’t really fight for anything. They really don’t conserve very much, nor do they do much to develop and implement a conservative vision for the state. Again, this may be partially because we are uniparty state. The Republicans have no competition. If a Republican candidate says the right things on the campaign trail, he’ll get elected, and then face virtually no accountability. He can make excuses for why he didn’t follow through on anything he promised. And the voters will buy it. Again and again.
Compare our politics here in Alabama to what Ron DeSantis has done for our neighbors to the south in Florida. Politically and culturally, Alabama is the more conservative state. On paper, we should have more effective conservative rule. In Alabama, Republican candidates win more consistently and by larger margins than they do in Florida. But once elected, they do a lot less. My sense is that most conservatives in Alabama are the “grill American” types — they just want to be left alone. Our best men do not go into politics because they do not see it as important or as exciting as other things they could do, and they want the government to play a minimal role in their lives. We have not produced a political leader like DeSantis with a vision for the state and the drive to implement it. Maybe Tommy Tuberville will change that — he certainly seems more competent and capable than our recent governors. But I don’t think the problem in Alabama is just the people we have running for office. Again, it goes back to our people. I think conservative voters here tend to be lazy. We take our state’s conservatism for granted so we are not used to having to fight for much and we don’t demand much.
What does Alabama need? We need voters who demand more. We need more conservative statesmen who are willing to fight. We need political leaders with a conservative, Christian vision for our state and the will to implement it. The potential is there; we just need to actualize it.
—
In a heavily churched, culturally conservative area like where I live, churches tend to be pretty thin theologically and liturgically. They’re mostly “country club” type churches aimed at keeping people comfortable. There’s a kind of low grade antinomianism in the preaching, eg, justification by faith is used as an excuse for not doing any serious application because application is “legalistic.”
—
Behind the crisis of conservative political leadership, there is a crisis of weak pastoral leadership.
—
American evangelicals need to learn to call the church “mother” once again, as our Reformed forefathers did. And in learning to call the church our mother, we need to learn to honor her as such.
—
The church is a powerful force in history, but this is rarely recognized because her power is often subtle and invisible and behind the scenes. It a “hand that rocks the cradle rules the world” type power.
—
From a talk I gave years ago on liturgy and culture:
It’s a commonplace on the right to say that “politics follows culture.” While I don’t think it always plays out exactly that way, it’s proverbially true. What is *not* recognized and talked about often enough on the right is the truth that “culture follows cult.” That is to say, you are what you worship. The culture you produce flows out of your cult — who and how you worship. Cult, culture, and politics all ultimately derive from the God or gods we worship. This is why I remain a staunch ecclesiocentrist: Psalm 115:8 is one of the universe’s deep, unalterable truths. I believe the fount of Christian civilization is the church’s liturgy. We will start to see culture change when the church reforms her worship. When we do God’s will in the heavenly sanctuary, worshipping him joyfully and reverently on a wide scale, things will begin to change in earthly corridors of powe
—
Christians and conservatives — that is, people on the political and cultural right — have a tremendous opportunity right now. The only question is whether or not we will seize it. The left has been the dominant force in our culture for a long, long time. But now the left’s grip is weakening. The left is not capable of producing culture or exercising leadership anymore. As the left gets more consistent with its own idiotic presuppositions, it starts to cannibalize itself. Take pop culture as an example. The left has basically killed pop culture. The left has no ideas. The left has run out of stories — and frankly, never had good stories to tell anyway, without borrowing from the right. The left has spent itself and it’s empty. There’s now a huge cultural void. Who’s going to make the great movies and write the great books and compose the great music for the next generation? Have conservatives prepared themselves to build a culture? Can we move beyond fighting over culture and actually create culture? If we do, we look back at this time as a turning point. If we don’t, we’ll look back on this time as a missed opportunity
—
My presidential voting history:
The first time I ever voted was in a Republican primary for Pat Buchanan. I had a couple mentors who got me reading Sobran, Buchanan, etc., and I liked the vision they laid out.
I never voted for the Republican candidate for president in the general election until Trump in 2020. I didn’t vote for him in 2016 because I couldn’t trust him, though I did expect him to win. I voted for him again in 2024. Otherwise, I was always voted for a third-party candidate who was to the right of the Republican candidate. I think I wrote someone in once or twice. (Caveat: I always lived in red states when voting – Alabama, Texas, Louisiana, then Alabama again. Had I lived in contested states, I might’ve voted differently, at least a few times, in an effort to stymie the Democrat candidate.)
I was obviously too young to vote for Reagan, but I was a Reagan fan growing up. I appreciated his gravitas, humor, and leadership. I came to realize later that there were many problems with Reagan‘s presidency (though many of them were not really his fault), but I do think he was a great leader. I appreciate that he won the Cold War, which is what he set out to do. I never cared for the Bushes. At the time, I thought W. was a solid leader after 9/11 (eg, the first pitch thrown out at Yankees stadium), but there was nothing compelling about his policies or character. I was repulsed by Romney and McCain type Republicans.
—
What is the glory of God? Scripture and Reformed theology talk quite a bit about God’s glory. What is glory all about?
God’s glory is that which makes God God. God’s glory is the Godness or God, the Godhood of God. God’s glory is who he is – it’s his person, his character, his life.
But there’s something more. God’s glory has a revelatory, of public, dimension. God’s glory is witnessed. It is seen. It is displayed. Thus, we can put it this way: God’s glory is the summation of all his infinite attributes and perfections, revealed in his works, to the wonder and astonishment of his creatures.
—
“Love and concern for the church carry me away into a sort of ecstasy so that I care for nothing else.” — John Calvin, writing to Pierre Viret
—
“I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen, not because I see it but because by it I see everything else.” — C. S. Lewis, doing his best Cornelius Van Til impersonation
—
If you apply the term “race” to nationalities/ethnicities (as some want to do), the vast majority of marriages in America are interracial and have been for a long time. And then you have to still somehow distinguish nations as races from races as biological groups.
The reality is that God has organized the human race into nations, not races. “Scottish” and “white people” were never interchangeable terms, even when Scotland was 100% white. What’s interesting is that historically, “Scottish” is a much thicker identity than “white.” The racial composition of a nation is not the issue. The issue is how God has organized human reality. In my church we prayer for our state, our nation, and other nations each Sunday. We have never prayed for “white people” (or “black people,” etc.)
—
The covenant is not mere propositions.
—
“Ah, children, be afraid of going prayerless to bed, lest the Devil be your bedfellow.” — Cotton Mather
—
Beeke’s little booklet “What Did the Reformers Believe About the Age of the Earth?” is very good. He shows that the Westminster Confession’s expression “in the space of six days” to describe God’s work of creation was a well-established technical expression for natural days. The Westminster divines intentionally used traditional language so there could be no doubt as to what they meant. They were explicitly rejecting the view of Augustine that God created everything in a moment. (Augustine got that flawed understanding from his reliance on a mistranslation of the extra canonical work of Ecclesiasticus.) Beeke includes plenty of documentation from Luther, Calvin, and other leading Reformers to show definitively how the interpreted Genesis 1.
—
“The Christian church is that society which does not take its dogma from the reigning plausibility structure, but explicitly takes as starting point for all its searching, learning, teaching and acting, the story which the Bible tells with its determinative centre in the incarnation, ministry, death and resurrection of the Word, by whom and for whom all things were made and hold together.” – Lesslie Newbigin
—
“Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of western civilization. To this day, we have no other options [besides Christianity]. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter.” – Jurgen Habermas
—
“We cannot insist that the first years of infancy are of supreme importance, and that mothers are not of supreme importance, or that motherhood is a topic of sufficient interest for men, but not of sufficient interest for mothers. Every word that is said about the tremendous importance of trivial nursery habits goes to prove that being a nurse is not trivial. All tends to the return of the simple truth that the private work is the great one and the public work the small. The human house is a paradox, for it is larger inside than out . . . “
— G. K. Chesterton
—
“A person is a total unity of body and soul which cannot be split into a sexual corpse and a sexless psyche. The indivisible unity of the inner and outer life, of body and soul, is a fact which is daily experienced, is demonstrated by science, and is borne witness to by the Bible. Body and soul stand in very close relationship to each other and mutually influence each other. Since soul and body form an inseparable unity, being male or female characterizes the whole person and not only his or her body . . . A person only exists as a man or as a woman. A person does not just have a male or female body, he is a man or she is a woman. Sex is not just one personal characteristic, but a mode of being which determines one’s whole life.” — Werner Neuer
—
The claim is made by some Neo-Nazis that “Christians have always been racists…we just believe what everyone before 1960 believed.”
This is utterly false. First, it’s anachronistic. Views of what the races are have not been static over history. Pre-18th century people did not have a biological conception of race the same way we do. Darwin, in particular, changed the way races were viewed, and the rise of 19th century (and later) racism owes a great deal to Darwinian evolution. The full title of Darwin’s work was “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” The racialist implications bound up in his theory were inescapable – but also quite novel. It was common for earlier generations to think that skin color was a function of latitude, not genetics. (See the book Not Stolen by Jeff Finn Paul for historical details on this point.) There is no historical evidence that racial bigotry was built into the Christian ethic or served as an article of faith amongst pre-modern believers.
When the first European colonists arrived in North America, many of them (especially the Spanish but also some English and French) intermarried with the Indians with hardly any controversy. Obviously they knew that a believer should marry only in the Lord, but they evangelized the Indians, and once some converted, interracial marriages became almost inevitable. Think of John Rolfe.
When I hear the claim that everyone before 1960 was a racialist, I wonder what churches these people attend. If they do go to church, what prayers do they use? What hymns do they sing? If they are part of a church that respects tradition and incorporates historical hymnody and other liturgical forms, they should know better than to think pre-1960 Christians were racial bigots. There are many pre-1960 hymns that celebrate God’s mercy to all nations. But I know of no hymns or prayer forms that tout white supremacy, or the curse of Ham as perpetual, or any other kind of racialist doctrine as an article of Christian faith. If someone can produce evidence of racial bigotry in historic Christian hymnody, I’d like to see it. What I see is a lot of the opposite of that. Take the 19th century hymn, “Hail to the Lord’s Anointed” as an example. Its lyrics include these verses:
Kings shall fall down before Him,
And gold and incense bring;
All nations shall adore Him,
His praise all people sing;
For He shall have dominion
O’er river, sea, and shore,
Far as the eagle’s pinion,
Or dove’s light wing can soar.
Arabia’s desert ranger
to Him shall bow the knee;
The Ethiopian stranger
His glory come to see;
With offerings of devotion
ships from the isles shall meet,
To pour the wealth of oceans
in tribute at His feet.
There is nothing that suggests the Arab or the Ethiopian is incapable of salvation or sanctification. No, these people groups will be included with others in bringing their treasure into the kingdom. These nations will be discipled and transformed.
—
The church had already stamped out European slavery in the Middle Ages before it got reintroduced in the Americas with the African slave trade. Anti-miscegenation laws were not common in Christendom until the 18th century and even then only existed in a limited geographic locale. They are not part of the Christian tradition as such. They were a short-lived novelty.
The races certainly had interaction prior to the exploring/settling of the Americas. But if that interaction was minimal, then we should all recognize that whatever 17th-19th century Christian’s believed about race was novel, and not part of the Christian tradition, and certainly shouldn’t be normative today – no more than the first cellphone rules should be considered the norm for all of time.
Western Christianity existed about 1700 years before there were any laws against interracial marriage. Whites had been in the “new world” 200+ years before such laws were implemented. In terms of the history of the church, anti-miscegenation laws in America are just a blip. None of this, as far as I can tell, was ever treated as an article of faith and none of these racialist views ever made it into the liturgy or hymnody of the church. These views on race and interracial marriage are an outlier in church history.
—
Zionism – aka Jewish identity politics – has been successful because it’s had supporters from the theologically confused dispensational right *and* from the elitist/Marxist left. Of course, Reformed Christians have never been as susceptible to theological arguments that we owe the modern nation-state of Israel some kind of unqualified support. MAGA is rightly questioning this unconditional support from the perspective of what serves America’s interests. It’ll be interesting to see if anything actually charges
—
I have no objection to acknowledging race is real. I think the issue is the role we want race to play in our politics relative to other factors. What is commonly called “identity politics,” whether of the feminist, Jewish, or racial variety, is a huge part of the problem. There is a better way forward for Christians.
The Trump administration is far from perfect, but they are doing exactly what I’m talking about. Trump’s team never uses racial framing for anything. But they have secured the border, eviscerated DEI, etc.
—
My notes on the Mahler/White debate:
I haven’t watched much of the debate (and probably won’t), but it seems what the debate actually proved is that anarcho-tyranny and the welfare state have produced the intended results.
Obviously, White won on the merits of the case. If God can turn stones into sons of Abraham, he can sanctify people of any race to whatever degree he chooses.
But there is a bit more here to explore. To attribute the sins of a particular racial group solely to genetics is wrongheaded. For example, the black illegitimacy rate in America today very high. But if you go back a few generations in history, the black illegitimacy rate was much lower *then* than the white illegitimacy rate is *now.* In other words, black promiscuity and fatherlessness today is not just a product of genetics; it is a response to particularly perverse incentive structure (imposed on them mainly by white progressives).
Even when we characterize particular racial sins, we must recognize that races are simply not static. Whites were not always the overly docile, low T, easily deceived, self-loathing people they are today. In many ways, it’s hard to believe that whites in America today are genetically related to the people who discovered and settled this continent, claimed victory in two world wars, and won the space race. Our resemblance to our ancestors is quite vague in those respects.
Likewise, during England’s Victorian era, it might have been hard to fathom how that prim and proper people could be genetically related to those who, a couple millennia earlier, worshipped rocks, ran into battle naked, and were accused of being too stupid to even serve as slaves.
Other racial and ethnic groups have, and no doubt will, undergo similar transformations and deformations over the course of history.
—
Another post on the issue of race and culture:
1. None of us are multiculturalists or cultural egalitarians. Wilson, myself, and others are still happy to cite Rushdoony, Dabney, etc., when it’s fitting. I don’t subscribe to their infallibility but I do appreciate them. The question is not, “Would Dabney be excommunicated if he were in the church today?,” but, “Would Dabney make the same errors if he were in the church today?” I think Wilson has done a fair job evaluating Dabney.
2. A Christian, conservative political agenda can be accomplished without racial identity politics (the successes of the Trump administration are an excellent test case for this).
3. Racial identity politics from the right, including making a big issue of interracial marriage, is bound to lose. If you want to be a martyr for racial identity politics, go ahead. I’d rather win as a Christian – and I do think significant victories are possible if Christians will be wise and vigilant about it. The alt right, or Neo-Nazis, or whatever they should be called, are fools and a distraction from the task at hand.
—
In general, in the church, each sex should police its own. Titus 2:3-5 is a good illustration of the principle, as it commands older women to train younger women in their particular tasks/vocation as wives and mothers. The only caveat I’d add is that in a Presbyterian context like mine, the pastor and elders are ultimately responsible for the shepherding of the whole body, men, women, and children. So the pastor and elders should not think they are outsourcing Spiritual care of females (or kids) to older women in the congregation. But in the life of a healthy church, there are layers of shepherding, and a lot of that will take place through older folks mentoring younger members of the same sex.
—
Joe Rigney’s (@joe_rigney ) book “The Sin of Empathy” has a good section on “the progressive gaze.” Obviously, this is just a particular species of the fear of man. Not surprisingly, it’s led to all kinds of mischief in the church.
The progressive gaze is undoubtedly part of Tim Keller’s legacy. Keller explicitly and intentionally preached under the progressive gaze. His whole philosophy of ministry was developed around the progressive gaze. His inability/unwillingness to address certain issues, like abortion and homosexuality, were very much due to the progressive gaze. He had no problem offending Christian fundamentalists; in fact, he would sometimes do so intentionally (perhaps to gain street cred with the progressives he imagined to be his audience). But he would tap dance around texts and nuance things to death to minimize offense to progressives. As his sermons gained popularity, more and more evangelical and Reformed pastors adopted the same approach, sensibilities, and sensitivities in their preaching. Of course, as Rigney shows, the result of accommodating, rather then confronting, progressivism during the neutral world era was negative world. The attempt to win them with winsomeness and watered down truth claims failed. Indeed, it backfired.
I explain more here: https://x.com/vicar1973/status/1823447414247985606?s=46&t=au-C34qTtl4rGPFr5igkAw
[Here is the linked thread from August 2024:
The last two chapters of @megbasham ‘s book show why pastors need to speak with clarity, forcefulness, and frequency to the controversial biblical teachings of the day. This is true for pastors even in heavily blue areas. Holding back the truth to be “missional” simply doesn’t work. The pulpit needs to be a place of direct, courageous proclamation of the whole counsel of God. 1/3
Kristin Powers came to resent Tim Keller because he tried to bait and switch his listeners. He was not upfront about the church’s convictions on issues like abortion and homosexuality. Keller’s third-wayism led him to soft-peddle controversial teachings. His winsome-driven attempt to be above the fray for the sake of mission backfired. It would have been better for her to know the true cost of discipleship upfront. But Keller did not lay it all out for her so Powers felt misled and betrayed when she finally discovered the church’s real beliefs. 2/3
Contrast that with @megbasham ‘s own beautiful testimony in the closing chapter of her book. What broke her out of her spiritual enslavement to drug and alcohol abuse? Two things: 1. Reading the plain spoken words of a hermit who was clear about Lancelot’s sin of lust. 2. Reading the hard edged, pull-no-punches call to repentance from John MacArthur’s book Vanishing Conscience. That’s what broke her free – true words, plainly spoken, with nothing held back for the sake of avoiding offense. Preachers, take note. “Hard truths make for soft hearts.” 3/3]
—
The Christian goal is not “religious freedom” (whatever that is). The Christian goal is a discipled nation.
The Christian view of liberty is an ordered liberty. In a discipled nation, the framework for liberty, religious or otherwise, is provided by the Christian faith.
The religiously neutral version of religious liberty that so many subscribe to is unworkable and contradictory. For example, one religious group is polygamous, another religious group has the conviction that polygamy should be outlawed. They cannot both have freedom. Molech worshippers want to sacrifice babies. Christian’s say that is murder and should be outlawed. They cannot both be free in the same way. Etc.
The reality is that in any society some particular religion will have hegemony. True neutrality is impossible. I fear the myth of religious liberty (as commonly held) has undercut Christians from advocating for a public morality that would serve the common good and conform the nation to God’s will for social ethics.
I actually think my understanding of liberty is much closer to the original intent of 1A (which was compatible with established churches at the state level, blasphemy laws, anti-sodomy laws, etc.).
—
Apart from faithful churches, the world haunted by demonic principalities and powers.
With faithful churches, the world is enchanted by the presence of Christ and his Spirit.
The church’s Spiritual warfare is a battle over this truth: Do we want to live in a haunted cosmos or an enchanted cosmos?
—
I’ve seen the claim on X recently – I can’t recall from who – that eschatology is irrelevant to politics.
That seems like a very odd claim to make. Hasn’t dispensational eschatology had a massive impact on American politics for several generations now? In my opinion, its had a *bad* effect because it misunderstands who the true people of God are and gives the modern-nation state of Israel a privileged place in American foreign policy and in world affairs it should not have.
But, getting back to the point at hand, it seems to me that eschatology is very relevant many of our current political debates. A covenantal eschatology (amil, postmil) is going to produce a different politics than a dispensational eschatology.
There are other ways I could see eschatological convictions shaping one’s politics (especially since eschatology had to do with our telos, or end, which is at the heart of many political questions), but the view of modern day Israel is a huge one in which one’s eschatology will be a massive factor. But maybe I’ve misunderstood the claim.
—
The best thing a husband and wife can do for the kingdom of God is raise godly offspring (Malachi 2:15).
—
Want to make America great again? Ok, then make the local church great again. There’s no other way.
Great churches are the key to national greatness.
—
So you want mature, savvy, “based” Christian statesmen? Not the kind of nominally Christian and conservative politicians we’ve had?
Where are you going to get Protestant politicians who are real, not nominal, if they are not raised up in the church? Where are the wise statesmen? They don’t grow on trees. They have to be formed and shaped — and the church teaching, liturgy, and hymnody have a critical role in that.
—
If abortion is not criminalized, with punishments attached, then all anti-abortion laws are really just suggestions, not actual laws.
—
The doctrine of “sphere sovereignty” has become the classic, Reformed way of viewing the organization of society. For our purposes, it is enough to focus on the three most prominent “spheres,” namely the church, family, and state. These spheres represent different zones, or sectors, of human life. Each sphere-institution has its own functions, responsibilities, and privileges:
To the state has been entrusted the sword. It has been wisely said that political power comes out of the barrel of a gun. Simply put, the state has the power to tax, to coerce, and if necessary, to kill. Civil magistrates must use their God-given powers in accordance with God’s norms of justice, lest they devolve into tyrants. As ministers of God, they are to serve his glory and the common good, not their own personal agendas, or special interest groups (Rom. 13:1-7). They are to rule in wisdom, integrity, and honesty. The Bible is far less concerned with the particular form of government than it is with the character and aims of those who govern. In biblical history, God’s people are able to thrive in decentralized tribal states as well as as in sprawling international empires. The issue is not so much “big” versus “small” government as it is “righteous” versus “unrighteous” rulers (and peoples) — though there is no question, the bigger the government, the easier it is to corrupt.
To the family has been entrusted the rod of discipline. As Proverbs puts it (quite bluntly!), parents have the power to spank their children (23:13-14). Obviously, the rod is to be used in a context of love and tenderness, but it is to be used nonetheless, along with other means of nurture and training. Parents are to raise their children up in the Lord which means not only corporeal punishment, but also instruction, prayer, and example-setting. In this way, marriage produces not just offspring, but godly offspring (Mal. 2:15). Parents must take fundamental responsibility for the holistic nurture and maturation of their children. Parents are responsible for the health, education, and welfare of the next generation.
Finally, to the church has been entrusted the greatest power of all. The church has been given the keys of the kingdom, that is, the power to open and shut the gates of heaven, in accordance with God’s word. Pastors and elders exercise these powers on behalf of the whole body through preaching, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and discipline. Elders, of course, are not autonomous or infallible, and so we usually refer to their power as “ministerial and declarative.” But the church possesses a real, governmental power nonetheless. We betray how politicized we have become by the fact that when we hear the term “government” we only think of the state. We have forgotten that the most powerful governing body on earth, to which even angels will be subject, is the church.
The church’s power and authority are given to her by Christ for the sake of fulfilling her global mission of discipling the nations. Of course, nations include families, so the church is also charged with discipling families.
Abraham Kuyper, the prince of sphere sovereignty theologians, rightly argued that Christ’s lordship extends over each of these speheres. Sphere sovereignty is a helpful construct in many ways. At the most basic level, it teaches us that the fundamental pattern of society, with state, family, and church involved in various interlocking and overlapping relationships, is God-given. In a day when the monogamous marriage bond is viewed as a creation of Western civilization, sphere sovereignty reminds us that God ordained, and therefore defines, marriage. Similarly, in a time when social contract theorizing remains a popular, if unspoken, political assumption, sphere sovereignty reminds us that the state is not the product of individual men enterring into a voluntary compact with one another, but was ordained of God to reflect his own kingship (Gen. 9:6; Rom 13:1ff). Or, to take another example, sphere sovereignty teaches us that it is not enough to ask, “What does the Bible say?” We must ask, “To whom does the Bible say this? To magistrates, fathers, or elders?” Sphere sovereignty keeps authority within bounds, reminding us no human authority is ultimate. Your civil magistrate cannot excommunicate you from the Lord’s Table because of a speeding ticket, nor can your elders execute your child if he disobeys.
Sphere sovereignty is true insofar as it affirms God has ordained various governments. But we still need to spell out the inter-relationships between the various spheres, and we must also discern which sphere (if any) is central. What are some of the issues?
First, the spheres are not always that distinct from one another. Indeed, the boundaries between spheres are often thinly dotted, at most. We must avoid an artificial, overly simplistic carving up of human life. Society, in reality, is far too messy and variable to actually be cut up into fixed, discrete, atomistic compartments. At most, we should argue for a “fuzzy” sphere sovereignty, in which the core of each institution is preserved, but overlap in the peripherals is allowed. For example, many are quick to assign the function of education to the family. And no doubt, parents do have fundamental educational responsibilities for their children. But other spheres have a legitimate interest in education as well. Church members take vows to assist in the Christian nurture of every baptized infant.This nurture may legitimately include various forms of church schooling.The state also has some stake in education, since God ordained the civil magistrate not simply to maximize individual liberties (as Libertarians argue), but to serve the common good. Throughout history Christian rulers have promoted education in all kinds of ways. Figures as diverse as King Alfred and Martin Luther have promoted cooperative models of education, in which family, church, and state (most often at the local level) work together to promote educational institutions. Health care falls into a similar overlap. While families bear the basic burden of health care responsibilites (1 Tim. 5:8), the church diaconate may often be called on in this area as well (e.g., Acts 6:1ff). The church, in fact, was the originator of hospitals and the chief instrument of medical care for centuries (especially towards the needy). Christian kings and magistrates have also played a “safety net” role in providing care for the poor, when family and church could not do so for whatever reason (Dan. 4:27).
A second, and more severe, problem with the sphere sovereignty model is its “leveling effect.” Sphere sovereignty all too easily gives the impression that each of these institutions is of equal value and importance, as though the church were just one institution among many under Christ’s lordship. Because all spheres are open to kingdom influence and activity, the kingdom itself is viewed as the aggregate of Christian cultural involvement in every area of life. The church is not considered unique and she has no special function in relation to the other spheres. There is a kind of institutional egalitarianism.
In reality, however, the church is the central and highest sphere, since, if for no other reason, she is responsible for the discipling of the other spheres (Mt. 28:16-20). How can the church disciple nations and families unless she has a kind of Spiritual authority over them? Unless she has a kind of Spiritual primacy?
In and through the church, kingdom principles invade and shape the other spheres. In this sense, other spheres are under the Spiritual authority and care of the church and in turn are to serve and promote the church. This “ecclesiocentric” (as it has been called) view seems to be well grounded in biblical principles. Paul tells us that Christ rules over all things for the sake of his church (Eph. 1:22-23). Of course, since the church is his body and bride, this is just how things should be. The church is the first and final form of Christian culture and therefore fulfills a unique role.
How does the church shape other spheres? Much more is involved than simply exegeting Bible passages that address rulers or family members. A faithful church models God’s pattern of life for the other spheres. For example, the church’s required tithe teaches fiscal discipline in other spheres. The church’s celebration of the Eucharist teaches other spheres about service, festivity, and sharing. The church’s disciplinary courts provide a model for civil courts. The church’s specialized art (architecture, music, etc.) cultivates a taste for beauty which spills over to the other spheres. The church’s leadership shows rulers in other spheres how to exercise power in a humble fashion. The church’s diaconate models the practice of mercy to the marginalized and poor. The church’s liturgy and teaching promotes the growth of literacy and education in other areas of life. The church’s respect for women and children shapes wider cultural policies towards them. And so on.
This is not to say the other spheres are to copy the church in every respect – certainly not! The various spheres have their own functions and ends. There must be variety. For example, the music we sing in church is going to be different from the music we sing in the home when putting a baby to sleep, or when we gather in a stadium for a major sporting event. But the church has a kind of headship over the other spheres. To her the oracles of God have been enstrusted. She has been commissioned to disciple nations – including the whole of their cultural life. She is the kingdom in its most concentrated, visible form, and she models “life as it really oughta be” (as it’s been put by Frank Senn and other liturgical theologians).
To further clarify, this does not this mean the church actively legislates for the family or the state in every detail. In fact, one thing the church must teach the other spheres (by example) is that their governmental powers are limited. The church provides the other spheres with their basic worldview and vision from the Word of God, but the applications will vary, and the church’s officers must be careful to not overreach. Being a pastor or church member does not magically give one expertise in every area of life. The church must respect personal liberty, and must not bind the conscience where Scripture is silent. The church must respect the authority God has entrusted to fathers and magistrates. Except in more extreme cases, she is much better off giving these other institutions general guidelines from the Scriptures, rather than specific rules, laws, or policies. At times the church has found herself bogged down in addressing specifics, and when she does so other aspects of her mission suffer. A meddling church is hardly better than an abdicating church.
Unfortunately, Americans have not paid much attention to the social role of the church. The church has been treated more as a religious club than the core of the kingdom of God on earth. We might expect non-Christians to pay little attention to the church. But when professing Christians have little regard for the church’s officers, sacraments, discipline, and ministries, it is very troubling. American Christians have sometimes created para-church entities to fill the void left by their low ecclesiology. All too often, American Christians have looked to the family or the nation (or both) to do the work God actually assigned to the church.
—
“To sum the matter up: whoever finds himself unsuited to the celibate life should see to it right away that he has something to do and to work at; then let him strike out in God’s name and get married.” — Martin Luther
—
Calvinism worthy of the name has always had both the covenant and predestination – the revealed things and the secret things (Deut. 29:29). Reformed Baptists basically shave off the covenant, or collapse it into predestination. But the idea that recovering the covenantal dimensions of Calvinism (as FV did) will lead to Arminianism is historical, theological, and exegetical nonsense. Real Calvinists will always hold together unconditional election and covenant conditionality – just like Calvin himself. Real Calvinists will hold to sacramental efficacy and the view of the visible church taught in WCF 25.2.
—
It is pure invention that Pope, bishops, priests, and monks are called the “spiritual estate” while princes, lords, artisans, and farmers are called the “temporal estate.” This is indeed a piece of deceit and hypocrisy. Yet no one need be intimidated by it, and that for this reason: all Christians are truly of the spiritual estate, and there is no difference among them except by office… We are all consecrated priests by baptism, as St. Peter says: “You are a royal priesthood and a priestly realm” (1 Pet.2:9).
— Martin Luther
—
Pastors, before you step into the pulpit tomorrow, ask yourself, “If Paul had preached this sermon in Thessalonica, would it have caused a riot?” If not, you might want to spice it up a bit.
—
Wallace summarizing Calvin’s view of Christendom: “What Calvin lived to achieve in Geneva deserves to be called a commonwealth in which both Church and State serve each other in serving the Word of God, and the individual is nurtured and trained to true freedom and responsibility in the community.”
—
Ronald Wallace on how a dualistic view of nature and grace leads to the secularization of the state:
“For Thomas of course there was always a living and close connection between God and nature, and thus between grace and nature; but the idea of a natural law, reasonable in itself, gave a certain independence to the State in its secularity. Thomas also so underlined the distinction between man as a natural being and man as a Christian as to make them two potentialities capable of quite distinctive self-realization, the natural aspect of man being worthy of its own free self-expression and sufficient to achieve its own natural end…Francis Schaeffer blames Aquinas for beginning the movement which has set the secular realm free and unrelated to that which is Christian thus allowing nature to become not only “autonomous” but to control and “eat up” grace.”
—
Ronald Wallace summarizing John Calvin’s program of cultural transformation:
“His program could be described as one of social sanctification rather than of social reconstruction. A transformation first had to be brought about in the personal lives of Geneva’s citizens. This was to be achieved chiefly by two means: through social discipline, and through the sacramental power of the Word of God.”
—
When the church seeks to accommodate her message to the world, the church gets assimilated into the world. The church’s proper posture towards the world is one of confrontation, not accommodation. Seeking to make the church’s teaching palatable to the world is the way of compromise and surrender.
—
The church is a “she,” not an “it.”
In Ephesians 5, the husband’s body is his wife. The temple is definitely feminine in Scriptural categories, eg, the same language used for building the woman in Genesis 2 is used for building the tabernacle, the male priest enters the temple by passing through the veil, etc. The church is also our Mother, another feminine image. I’m not saying male imagery cannot be used. The church is a royal priesthood, an army, son/Israel of God, etc. But the corporate imagery is mainly feminine.
—
Being unable to answer the question, “What is a woman?” is the inevitable result of feminism. Likewise, giving the wrong answer to that question is the result of feminism.
—
Healthy and wise societies have always suppressed sexual perversion, legally and otherwise. Stigmatizing certain behaviors as shameful serves a good social purpose. All sin can be forgiven; no sin should be publicly celebrated; many sins should be publicly and culturally shamed.
—
The rise of the virtual world has come at the expense of the physical world. We have online “friends” but fewer real friends. We have developed a digital infrastructure while our physical infrastructure crumbles.
—
Feminism made the family wage virtually impossible.
—
Abortion is murder and should be treated as such legally for all involved.
—
Respect for property rights and the even enforcement of the rule of law are necessary ingredients to a high trust society. Any society that shows legal partiality in court based on sex or race or class is destroying the very possibility of social trust. Judicial guilt and innocence are determined by the facts of the case, not the identity group to which the plaintiff and the defendant belong.
—
Given that a foreign invasion of the sort that we’ve witnessed is a divine judgement, the answer is not (merely) deportation of persons here illegally, but repentance. If we want God’s blessing upon our nation, we must turn to him.
—
Buchanan had his flaws, but MAGA is just a pale imitation of the robust Christian nationalism Buchanan proposed in the 1990s. He saw where things were headed, saw the culture war had religious underpinnings, and saw the tide of populism that would eventually push back against a failed establishment. Buchanan was by no means perfect, and he was never a truly viable presidential candidate, but his wisdom and foresight should be recognized and appreciated. His book, Death of the West, is one of the best.
—
“Heaven and earth were created that the Son of God might be complete in a spouse.” — Jonathan Edwards
—
Always interesting to see Roman Catholics use their private judgment to assess the pope.
—
“The child of a Christian parent is presumptively a Christian and an heir of eternal life … Christian nurture beginning in infancy is the divine instrumentality of the salvation of the church’s children … [and] the primary method appointed for the propagating of the church … I do not hesitate to claim that far and away the largest part of the Christian church at any time or place — excepting that historical moment when the gospel first reaches a place and a people — are those who were born and raised in Christian families and that this is true whether one is considering Christendom as an outward phenomenon or only the company of the faithful followers of Christ … The biblical paradigm is for covenant children to grow up in faith from infancy.” — Robert Rayburn on covenant succession
—
“[God] mercifully chooses to speak to us through the Church. The Church is therefore, according to Calvin, a divinely ordained institution, whose purpose is to accomplish among us the work of the risen and exalted Christ, who, having, instituted certain ordinances, wills that we recognize in them His divine presence. Those who disdain the fare the Church provides when the Gospel is preached and the Sacraments rightly administered deserve to ‘perish from terrible hunger.’ In keeping with his patristic and medieval heritage, Calvin treats such people as children who despise their own mother’s milk.” – Geddes MacGregor
—
“A man without a country (a citizen of no nation) would be considered an anachronism in civil society. A professing Christian who is not a member of any Christian body should be just as much a rarity. There are three institutions and three only — family, church, and state — that can rightfully claim the allegiance of every living person. He who refuses, or evades, enrollment in the church of Christ is a traitor to Christ as surely as he who refuses or evades duty to the land in which he lives is considered to be an enemy or a rebel. “He that is not with me,” said Jesus, “is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad” (Mt. 12:30).” – Roderick Campbell
—
“When, according to Christian belief, lost souls are saved, the saved ones become united in the Christian Church…true Christians must everywhere be united in the brotherhood of the Christian Church.” – J. Gresham Machen
—
Being sinned against is never an excuse for sin. Love is not easily provoked.
—
“My conscience told me how strong the zeal with which I burned for the unity of the Church, provided truth were made the bond of concord.” — John Calvin, Reformed catholic
—
The university system needs to be subjected to the forces of the free market. We need to stop subsidizing student loans. We need to allow student loans to be rolled into bankruptcy. We need to cut federal funding for degrees in programs that serve no useful purpose and cannot generate ROI.
Progressive dominance in our universities is a state sponsored grift. It’s a tax-payer funded religion that undermines America’s Protestant heritage.
—
Stone Choir and James Lindsey are not the only options.
—
John Calvin understood the prophecy of Isaiah 11:4, that Messiah would strike the earth with the rod of his mouth and slay the wicked with the breath of his lips, as a reference to gospel preaching:
“When the prophet says he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth and with the breath of his lips shall slay the wicked, this must not be limited to the person of Christ alone, for it refers to the word which is preached by his ministers. Christ acts in them in such a way that he wishes their mouth to be reckoned as his mouth, and their lips as his lips.”
—
In Isaiah 11:1, Jesus is called a “branch” that grows out of Jesse’s stump. But look at verse 10: Isaiah says, “and in that day, there shall be a Root of Jesse.” Jesus is not only the branch that comes from Jesse, He is Jesse’s root. Messiah is root and branch. How can this be? This is a riddle/mystery. How can the Messiah be the descendant of Jesse, a sprout of Jesse, but at the same time be the root from which the house of Jesse grows? How can he be Jesse’s descendant and Jesse’s ancestor? This is one of many prophetic mysteries. It is a riddle that would only be solved in the fullness of time. How can he be the source of David’s kingdom and its culmination, both root and branch? It’s simple if you have the New Testament answer key: only by being God and man! In a mysterious, veiled way, Isaiah has pointed ahead to the incarnation. David’s son will also be God’s Son. He’s flesh of David’s flesh, but also very God of very God. As man, he is David’s descendant, David’s promised son. The NT emphasizes that the human ancestry of Jesus traced back to David. As God, he is David’s root, David’s creator and sustainer, the one who established, maintained, and completed the Davidic dynasty. He is both David’s son and David’s Lord, as he both God and man, two natures in one person.
—
“Evangelical theology has long had a tendency to leapfrog over redemptive history and head directly to personal experience of salvation.” — Sinclair Ferguson
—
“In principle, is there any difference between a Protestant claim to give (immediate) revelation in prophecy and interpreted tongues and a Roman Catholic claim to give (carefully thought-out) revelation through the teaching office of the church? Rapprochement between Protestant and Roman Catholic ‘charismatic Christians’ suggests a similar mindset is often shared quite unconsciously. Debates over the continuation or cessation of certain spiritual gifts will never make headway until it is realized that, to Christians in the Reformed tradition of Calvin, Owen, and Warfield, reservations on the exercise of such gifts are deeply rooted in sola Scriptura. To them it is not merely a traditional conviction about the cessation of gifts that is at stake, but 2 Timothy 3:16 itself.” — Sinc Ferguson
—
If I had to put James B. Jordan’s theology in one word, it would be “maturity.” Maturation is the theme that holds all of his work together.
—
In the middle of May, I spoke at a conference hosted by Church of the King in Sacramento, CA. I had a great time at the conference. I gave a talk on the role of the church and liturgy in cultural and spiritual warfare. One note about my talk: In the talk, I made the mistake of saying that Paul identified himself as Jesus’ prisoner (rather than Caesar’s prisoner) in the opening greeting of the letter. He actually does not do that at the beginning of the letter, but does it in 3:1 and 4:1. The mistake did not affect the content of my talk but I wanted to set the record straight.
—
An old note on future justification, comparing my views to Richard Gaffin’s:
Gaffin wants one justification with already/not yet dimensions
I’m fine with that, but I am also willing to talk about a twofold justification. I do not object to speaking of two justifications (just like there are two resurrections – related but distinct).
Gaffin would probably reject my formulation as heterodox, but if so, I’m not sure the biblical or Reformed authors would pass his test. Besides, this seems to make orthodoxy a matter of policing language rather than actual doctrinal substance. The best theologians recognize there can be a variety of ways to express a true doctrine.
—
Chesterton once said, “It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged.” I would only add it is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are excommunicated.
—
When one considers how many of the philosophers and statesmen who ruined Western civilization in general and America in particular were baptized and members of the church, it’s safe to say the downfall of the West can be traced back to a failure of church discipline.
—
I often point out that there is no reason to think Jesus is coming back soon and many reasons to believe his final return may be a long time off. There are several lines of evidence that point in this direction (e.g., the Bible speaks of God’s faithfulness to thousands of generations, the Great Commission must be completed before Jesus returns so he can inherit the nations as his redemptive possession, etc.). But whether you are convinced of those arguments or not, I think there can be no question that Christians have been far more effective when they take a long-term view of history rather than when they think Jesus is coming back at any moment (and probably very soon!). A few examples: The Christians who began work on the cathedrals in medieval Europe knew they would not live to see their completion, but they also knew most anything worth doing takes more than one generation to accomplish. That’s a good reminder in our instant, “what have you done for me lately?” society. When Arthur Guinness began his brewery, which went on to become one of the greatest Christian companies in history, he signed a 9000-year lease on the land. That’s what you call thinking long-term! Older versions of the Book of Common Prayer had tables for calculating the date of Easter out to 8400 AD. I have never been able to authenticate the veracity of this story about the oak beams in the dining hall at Oxford, but it illustrates the point very well:
“New College, Oxford, is of a rather late foundation, hence the name. It was probably founded around the late 16th century. It has, like other colleges, a great dining hall with big oak beamsacross the top. These might be eighteen inches square, and twenty feet long.
Some five to ten years ago, so I am told, some busy entomologist went up into the roof of the dining hall with a penknife and poked at the beams and found that they were full of beetles. This was reported to the College Council, who met in some dismay, because where would they get beams of that caliber nowadays?
One of the Junior Fellows stuck his neck out and suggested that there might be on the College lands some oak. These colleges are endowed with pieces of land scattered across the country. So they called the College Forester, who of course had not been near the college itself for some years, and asked him about the oaks.
And he pulled his forelock and said, “Well sirs, we was wonderin’ when you’d be askin’.”
Upon further inquiry, it was discovered that when the College was founded, a grove of oaks had been planted to replace the beams in the dining hall when they became beetly, because oak beamsalways become beetly in the end. This plan had been passed down from one Forester to the next for four hundred years. “You don’t cut them oaks. Them’s for the College Hall.”
A nice story. That’s a way to run a culture.”
—
Every Christian should know the story of Romanian Protestant pastor Josef Tson. This is Tson explaining the importance of working to build an explicitly Christian civilization:
“Let me illustrate the importance of understanding the times from my own experience. The communist disaster fell on my country [of Romania] when I was a teenager. For many years after that, my life was a battle for intellectual and spiritual survival under Marxist indoctrination and totalitarian and anti-Christian terror. I struggled to understand the nature of that calamity, and the Lord gave me that understanding. I wrote papers on the nature of the failure of communism. One of them, published under the title The Christian Manifesto landed me in six months of house arrest with harsh interrogations by the secret police. But for me the crucial moment came in 1977, when a friend of mine challenged me to set up an organization that would openly expose communism.
Here is what I told him: ‘Communism is an experiment that has failed. It wasn’t able to fulfill any of its many promises and nobody believes in it any more. Because of this, it will one day collapse on its own. Now, why should I fight something that is finished? I believe that our task is a different one. When communism collapses, somebody has to be there to rebuild society! I believe our job as Christian teachers is to train leaders so that they will be ready and capable to rebuild our society on a Christian basis.’
“To my surprise, here is what my friend said to me: ‘Josef, you are wrong. Communism will triumph all over the world, because this is the movement of the Antichrist. And when the communists take over in the United States, they will have no restraining force left. They will then kill all the Christians. We have only one job to do: to alert the world and make ready to die.’
A few years later my friend was forced to leave Romania. He came to the U.S. and settled down. Then I was forced into exile, and I moved to the U.S. as well. Since then, my friend has not done anything for Romania. He simply waited for the final triumph of communism and the annihilation of Christianity.
On the other hand, when I came here in 1981, I started a training program for Christian leaders in Romania. We translated Christian textbooks and smuggled them into Romania. With our partners in the organization, The Biblical Education by Extension (BEE), we trained about 1200 people all over Romania. Today, those people who were trained in that underground operation are the leaders in churches, in evangelical denominations, and in key Christian ministries.
You see, the way you look to the future determines your planning and your actions. It is the way you understand the times that determines what you are going to do.”
—
Every Christian who believes in the inspiration of Scripture is in principle a Calvinist. Inspiration means God worked through human authors without negating their human will/freedom to produce exactly the text God wanted. God controlled the free choices of the biblical authors.
—
All too often in life, one bad decision leads to another. Foolishness breeds foolishness. Likewise, wise decisions often lead to further wise decisions. Wisdom begets wisdom. This is why people’s lives tend to spiral upwards or spiral downwards. The wise get wiser and the foolish get more foolish.
—
The historic doctrine of Christian liberty as it arose in the West was liberty for the church to be the church. The Magna Carta begins:
“FIRST, THAT WE HAVE GRANTED TO GOD, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired . . .”
The modern liberal form of religious liberty is about the freedom of the individual. Liberalism relocates liberty from the institution of the church to the conscience of the individual. Liberalism privatizes religious liberty.
This is why liberalism is rightly understood as a heretical ecclesiology, indeed, an alternative ecclesiology. Liberalism wants to construct a society without a church, at least, without any visible, public church.
We will never defeat liberalism unless we return to this more ecclesial doctrine of religious liberty.
—
There are two ingredients every marriage needs if it is to age like fine wine rather than spoiled milk:
1. Godliness
2. Polarity
By godliness, I mean maturing Christian faithfulness, as seen in the fruit of the Spirit. By polarity, I mean an appreciation of the differences between men and women, and thus well-defined roles for the husband and wife. Godliness means living in accord with saving grace. Polarity means living in accord with our creational design. Without godliness, there is no peace. Without polarity, there is no romance.
—
Every Christian who believes in the inspiration of Scripture is in principle a Calvinist. Inspiration means God worked through human authors without negating their human will/freedom to produce exactly the text God wanted. God controlled the free choices of the biblical authors.
—
Nothing is as freeing as taking complete responsibility for your life.
When you take responsibility, you recognize your sins are really *your* sins – and so you can confess them, receive forgiveness, and move forward.
When you take responsibility for your problems, you realize you really can do something about them, rather than make excuses, blame others, play the victim, etc. A sense of responsibility brings with a sense of agency and so it kills passivity.
People who refuse to take responsibility for themselves end up feeling like their lives are meaningless. They have created a system in which nothing they do matters. They have a passive orientation towards life, being acted upon by others, but not acting themselves. They do not live; rather, life happens to them.
The only way to grow to maturity as a person is to learn to take responsibility for yourself. Refusing to take responsibility stunts grow. Taking responsibility is often painful, but it’s also liberating.
If the book of Proverbs had to be summarized in four words or less, perhaps the best summation would be, “Take responsibility for yourself.” Those who refuse responsibility do not fear God, do not understand life’s purpose, and cannot grow in wisdom.
—
Other than the book of Proverbs, the best summation of masculinity ever written is Rudyard Kipling’s poem “If.” Men should read it often. Young men should memorize it. Most of all, every man should live by it.
—
“People do not believe lies because they have to but because they want to.” – Malcolm Muggeridge
—
Nothing makes young people grow to maturity faster than getting married and having children. Obviously, this maturation is not automatic. But sharing life in the covenant of marriage, and then expanding that life into a covenant household with children for whom you are completely responsible, produces maturation in normal situations. It’s been rightly said, “Adults make babies, and babies make adults.”
Note: This does not make sanctification less real for those who do not marry and have children. But in those situations, folks will need to seek out ministries that put them in analogously challenging situations if they want to grow in the same ways.
—
There is abundant evidence that the left wing, progressive position on immigration is not driven by a love for immigrants, much less a love for neighbor, but a hatred of America.
—
As C. S. Lewis argued, a religion with female pastors (or priests) is no longer the Christian religion. If you’re going to have female pastors or priestesses, you might as well start referring to “God” as “Our Mother.” You are serving a different god, not the God revealed in the Bible.
—
According to Matthew 6:26 – 27, the birds are our our theological teachers. They preach a message on anxiety every day. Martin Luther explains:
“You see, He is making the birds our schoolmasters and teachers. It is a great and abiding disgrace to us that in the Gospel a helpless sparrow should become a theologian and a preacher to the wisest of men, and daily should emphasize this to our eyes and ears, as if he were saying to us: “Look, you miserable man! You have house and home, money and property. Every year you have a field full of grain and other plants of all sorts, more than you ever need. Yet you cannot find peace, and you are always worried about starving. If you do not know that you have supplies and cannot see them before your very eyes, you cannot trust God to give you food for one day. Though we are innumerable, none of us spends his living days worrying. Still God feeds us every day.” In other words, we have as many teachers and preachers as there are little birds in the air. Their living example is an embarrassment to us. … But we are as hard as stone, and we pay no attention even though we hear the great multitude preaching and singing every day.
Look at what else the dear little birds do. Their life is completely unconcerned, and they wait for their food solely from the hands of God. Sometimes people cage them up to hear them sing. Then they get food in abundance, and they ought to think: “Now I have plenty. I do not have to be concerned about where my food is coming from. Now I have a rich master, and my barns are full.” But they do not do this. When they are free in the air, they are happier and fatter. Their singing of Lauds and of Matins to their Lord early in the morning before they eat is more excellent and more pleasant. Yet none of them knows of a single grain laid away in store. They sing a lovely, long Benedicite and leave their cares to our Lord God, even when they have young that have to be fed.
Whenever you listen to a nightingale, therefore, you are listening to an excellent preacher. He exhorts you with this Gospel, not with mere simple words but with a living deed and an example. He sings all night and practically screams his lungs out. He is happier in the woods than cooped up in a cage, where he has to be taken care of constantly and where he rarely gets along very well or even stays alive. It is as if he were saying: “I prefer to be in the Lord’s kitchen. He has made heaven and earth, and He Himself is the cook and the host. Every day He feeds and nourishes innumerable little birds out of His hand. For He does not have merely a bag full of grain, but heaven and earth.”
Luther continues, showing that if we worry, birds are our theological and moral superiors:
“Now Christ says: “Every day you see before your very eyes how the heavenly Father feeds the little birds in the field, without any concern on their part. Can you not trust Him to feed you as well, since He is your Father and calls you His children? Shall He not be concerned about you, whom He has made His children and to whom He gives His Word and all creatures, more than about the little birds, which are not His children but your servants? And yet He thinks enough of them to feed them every day, as if they were the only thing He is concerned about. And He enjoys it when they fly around and sing without a care in the world, as if they were saying: ‘I sing and frolic, and yet I do not know of a single grain that I am to eat. My bread is not baked yet, and my grain is not planted yet. But I have a rich Master who takes care of me while I am singing or sleeping. He can give me more than all my worries and the worries of all people could ever accomplish.’”
Now, since the birds have learned so well the art of trusting Him and of casting their cares from themselves upon God, we who are His children should do so even more. Thus this is an excellent illustration that puts us all to shame. We, who are rational people and who have the Scriptures in addition, do not have enough wisdom to imitate the birds. When we listen to the little birds singing every day, we are listening to our own embarrassment before God and the people. But after his fall from the word and the commandment of God, man became crazy and foolish; and there is no creature alive which is not wiser than he. A little finch, which can neither speak nor read, is his theologian and master in the Scriptures, even though he has the whole Bible and his reason to help him.…”
—
A reminder that contemporary theological confusion over the modern nation-state of Israel is caused entirely by dispensationalism. Covenant theologians have always taught that the church, inclusive of Jew and Gentile believers, is the new and true Israel. Romans and Galatians show definitively that the children of Abraham are those who are in union with Christ. The modern nation-state of Israel is of no distinct prophetic significance. Christians owe no allegiance, certainly not any kind of unconditional support, to modern Israel. Whether or not America should ally with Israel is a prudential question based on what best serves national interests, but it is safe to say that there is no good case to be made for funding Israel’s wars. The modern nation-state of Israel has been allowed to exert entirely too much influence over American politics, through both misguided theology and financial manipulation. We need to disentangle ourselves from that influence.
Covenant theologians have always held that in the new covenant age, the blessings of Genesis 12:3 are tied to the true church, not ethnic Jews. This is true even for those covenant theologians who take Romans 11 in a futurist way, pointing to a future mass conversion of Jews to Christ. The nation of Israel as she exists today is a Christ-hating secular state and unbelieving Jews are not the people of God in any way, shape, or form – though they are invited to join the people of God by repenting of their and trusting in Christ.
This is not an “anti-Semitic” view. I don’t think America owes Canada any special favors or support either, but that does not make me “anti-Canadian.” The special curse on the Jewish people for their rejection of Jesus (and other prophets leading up to Jesus, per Matthew 23:34-36) was executed in the destruction of the temple in 70AD (cf. Matthew 24:1–35), so there are no unique curses on them any longer. But they also do not have any special status as a people apart from converting to Christian faith. The Spiritual antithesis that runs through the human race is between Christian and non-Christian; dividing the world according to the Jew/Gentile distinction is no longer covenantally significant.
As a postmillennialist, I believe all ethnic groups/nations will eventually be converted and discipled, in fulfillment of the Great Commission. That includes Jews. Someday those branches that were broken out of the olive tree of Romans 11 will be grafted back in. But in the meantime, unbelieving Jews are no different than other unbelievers. Love them. Evangelize them. But don’t build your politics around giving them special treatment.
—
The church is Israel transformed through Christ’s death and resurrection. There is one covenant tree through history, with branches broken off and grafted in.
There really is a newness to what Israel has become – a newness that includes but goes beyond the inclusion of the Gentiles as Gentiles.
—
The curse of Adam rests on all who are in Adam. That includes unbelieving Jews, of course. The special curses of the covenant God made with Israel – the “woes” of Matthew 23 – have been fulfilled.
—
The Israelis are not the only foreign entity with way too much influence over American politicians….
—
I pray Trump listens to better informed, more biblically grounded voices than Dispensationalists and Zionists like Mike Huckabee. We need some covenant theologians/Reformed theologians in these positions of influence around the president.
Our policy in the Middle East should be guided by what is best for America and what is best for Christians in the region.
—
Nothing will make you appreciate America more than visiting our great national parks.
One thing I like about at least some of the older national parks I’ve visited is that they are “old school.” Very limited internet access. That has many benefits, including the fact that you have use paper maps. There is very little signage – they expect you to be competent and figure out where you are going. There are amazing hiking trails. Everything is clean. Everyone is friendly, for the most part. The lodges are often architectural wonders. Most importantly, the parks are incredibly beautiful. Our national parks are a glorious manifestation of dominion, American style.
—
The real culture war is fought with the principalities and powers. And that means the church, especially her worship and prayers, have a key role to play.
—
A lot of identity politics is really just an expression of homesickness. It’s a desire for roots and belonging in a rootless, atomized world. It’s a longing for an identity and a community that are lacking for many in modernity. But identity politics will never heal those wounds or fill those voids.
—
The Roe ruling in 1973 was a landmark moment in feminist history and has had disastrous results, not only for the millions of babies murdered but for women themselves. Giving women the power to destroy their offspring has destroyed modern women (faithful Christian women excepted, of course). Giving women the power to destroy their own children has ruined all that makes women glorious. It has destroyed femininity, motherhood, and home life. Combined with the pill, abortion supposedly liberated women from their natural role and broke the link between sex and children, thus making the sexes functionally interchangeable since the woman would no longer be “penalized” by childbearing. But this was a lie stacked on top of a lie stacked on top of a lie. The reality is that when we break God’s law, we break ourselves. When trash God’s design, we trash our own dignity and purpose. The widespread misery of people in our society today, especially women, is the blood of the innocents crying out for vengeance. A happy and prosperous society can never be built on sexual immorality or the corpses of the unborn.
—
I’m not a capital “T” Theonomist (though I could probably pass as a general equity theonomist), but I do want to push back on something I’ve seen repeated a few times. Sometimes it is claimed Theonomy is just Christianized Libertarianism, and therefore a species of Modern Liberalism. Along with this goes the claim that Theonomists were/are captivated by the postwar consensus and propositional nationhood.
This simply isn’t true. In terms of substance and rhetoric, there is something of a link between Theonomy and Libertarianism in that both value free markets (as opposed to the coercion of a state-planned, centrally managed economy). Both value private property (the 8th commandment) and are suspicious of “big government” controlling our lives.
But that’s where any similarities end. Theonomy is actually anti-Liberal in terms of the way we use that category today. (A claim could be made that Theonomy is generally compatible with classical liberalism but I won’t go into that here.) Theonomists always wanted the state to apply the principles of God’s law that are suited to political and social life, including the punishments Torah gives for various crimes. Some Theonomists wanted blasphemy laws and Sabbath (Lord’s Day) laws (though make sure you check out North’s brilliant discussion of the Sabbath in his book The Sinai Strategy). Theonomists wanted adultery and sodomy to be civil crimes, worthy of capital punishment. Theonomists always rejected the “place at the table” pluralism that drove contemporaneous movements, like the Religious Right and Moral Majority. Theonomists never claimed they wanted an established church, and they certainly held to jurisdictional distinctions between church and state (sphere sovereignty). But they wanted society as a whole to be shaped by Christian norms. They wanted all of society to be formally brought under the lordship of Christ. They did not see the state as an agent of salvation or regeneration – the ministry of Church brings those blessings – but a Christianized state was essentially the outflow of the Church successfully carrying out the Great Commission to disciple the nation.
Theonomists were somewhat divided on the issue of immigration, but when Theonomy was at its peak, the open borders immigration crisis was no where close to what we’ve seen in recent years. Theonomy generally focused on things Torah emphasizes like immigrants being required to live by the same law as Israelites and not being allowed to proselytize for false gods. Many Theonomists, like Rushdoony and North, were careful students of American history. While they differed in their interpretation of that history (Rushdoony stressed America’s Christian founding, while North pointed to the flaws and inconsistencies), they did not push propositional nationhood. They understood a nation is a people with a shared culture, language, history, and identity. Many Theonomists were Southern sympathizers regarding the War Between the States, but not uniformly so.
Theonomy got a lot right – and the current Christian Nationalism movement gets many of those same things right. In the 1980s, Theonomists were excited about Reagan and the possibility of a “conservative revolution” much the same way Christian Nationalists are hopeful about Trump and MAGA. It remains to be seen if Christian Nationalism can succeed where Theonomy failed (though note some would say it has not failed, it’s still an ongoing movement that may have lost momentum but lives on).
Theonomy definitely raised awareness about the teaching of the Bible and the Calvinist tradition on political theology. The movement failed to get traction for many reasons, but internal splits and divisions over issues like hermeneutics and the centrality of the church vs the family played a role. In addition, difficult personalities, unhelpful and unnecessarily harsh rhetoric, and relational ruptures also played a role. Theonomy lacked the leadership needed to build a politically viable coalition. Christian Nationalists would do well to learn from these problems and avoid them.
—
A take on Theonomy (T) vs. Christian Nationalism (CN):
Both CN and T as “movements” are pretty diverse within certain parameters
T’s want a Christian nation and CNs want Christian laws/norms to norm all of society – a lot of overlap there
Both are concerned to ground their viewpoint in Reformed history (contrary to CN criticisms of T as ahistorical) – the Ts dug deep into Calvin, the Puritans, colonial America, etc, and they wrote extensively in these eras – plus, they republished Mather, Calvin, etc., and I think showed there is a lot more “theonomy” in actual Reformed historical practice than is often acknowledged
T’s tended to emphasize more bottom up reform whereas CN feels more top down – but T’s were already living with a negative world mindset 40 years ago, so the “you can just do things” mentality didn’t make sense – no one on the right was functioning that way because the left/right divide was not as wide as it is now and there was no “strong man” leader to make it happen (Reagan was not like Trump in that regard)
The political situation in 2025 is just much more dire – T arose during the Cold War era of patriotism, freedom, etc.
T’s are suspicious of at least some versions of natural law, whereas CNs want to employ it (though I think a weakness is not really developing many natural law arguments – easier said than done)
Some versions of CN are much more racially conscious than T ever was – but at least with regard to immigration we are in a VERY different situation in 2025 than we were in 1985 – Biden was not showing “hospitality”to immigrants, he was welcoming an invasion to destroy his own nation
Even Dems had concerns about runaway immigration a generation ago
When T was at its intellectual peak in the 80s, they just weren’t writing a lot about immigration because it was not as hot of an issue
Buchanan began to make it an issue in the 90s, but by then T was petering out as a movement and was fragmenting in various ways
I am still not sure what CN economics is supposed to look like – I see criticisms of the free market (which on a global scale often seem valid since there is no global free market today), but I haven’t seen a real alternative proposed
Tariffs are not going to rebuild the American economy
And free markets have a proven track record no other system does in creating wide prosperity
T’s would be much more favorable to the free market and much more suspicious of big government centralization (since you can’t really tease big government out of Torah easily)
Those would be some of the differences as I see it.
—
“You Christians can’t oppose abortion unless you are willing to adopt all those unwanted children.”
What a dumb and demonic thing to say. All I ask is that men and women do the same thing my wife and I did – take responsibility for the children you create. They are YOUR children and YOUR responsibility. In cases of rape, killing the child just compounds the evil. I’m all for adoption in cases where it can serve a child’s best interests, and there are more people wanting to adopt than babies put up for adoption anyway. But the validity of Christian opposition to murdering the unborn does not depend on us personally adopting every unwanted child. That’s not how morality operates.
—
Does eschatology matter to politics?
No, not in the sense that our duties are what they are, no matter what we think the future holds.
But, yes, in that eschatology has everything to do with how far we believe the Overton Window can shift in one direction or the other. Our eschatology can either give us confidence in our political mission or undermine that confidence. Believing a goal can be accomplished – in this case, the fulfillment of the Great Commission, resulting in discipled and Christianized nations – is often critical to attaining that goal.
—
This is resurrection hope:
We live and die. Christ died and lived — so that we can live again after we die.
—
Heidelberg Catechism Q1 is well known and widely quoted, as it should be. It is brilliantly written, full of comfort, and deeply rooted in the gospel. Likewise, Q1 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism is well known and widely revered. It is an excellent summation of the purpose of the Christian life – to glorify and enjoy God forever.
But it’s a shame more people – including Reformed and Presbyterian churchmen – do not know Q1 under the Third Article of Martin Luther’s Small Catechism. It is arguably just as rich, biblical, and succinct as the opening questions and answers of the better known Protestant catechisms. This is Luther at his best.
Consider what Luther wrote here, and how wonderful it would be to have these words etched into your mind and heart just as much as Heidelberg Q1 and WSC Q1:
“I believe in the Holy Ghost; one holy Christian Church, the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen.”
What does this mean?
Answer: I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith; even as He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith; in which Christian Church He forgives daily and richly all sins to me and all believers, and at the last day will raise up me and all the dead, and will give to me and to all believers in Christ everlasting life. This is most certainly true.”
—
All of Christ for all of life = the whole Bible for the whole culture
—
The word “repent,” the first word of both John the Baptist’s preaching and Jesus’ preaching, does not so much mean “change your mind” but “change your allegiance.”
—
The Old Testament is a Christian book.
—
Racial and ethnic arrogance are just sinful and foolish as personal arrogance. Humility is a virtue in every domain of life.
—
“To live in the past and future is easy. To live in the present is like threading a needle.”
– Walker Percy
—
“By remaining faithful to its original commission, by serving its people with love, especially the poor, the lonely, and the dispossessed, and by not
surrendering its doctrinal steadfastness, sometimes the very contradiction of culture by which it serves as a sign, the Church serves culture best.”
– Walker Percy
—
In a very real sense, the Eucharist makes the church. We are what we eat – we eat the body of Christ in order to become the body of Christ.
—
When guys on the right (who should know better) say things like, “Pastors shouldn’t preach anything political, they should never meddle in any civil affairs, stay in your lane,” what I hear is a tacit admission that the Bible teaches something contrary to what they want to happen politically. They are granting that their political agenda has unbiblical elements and political preaching could challenge those elements. And so rather than submit their political vision to Scripture, they try to silence Scripture by silencing those who preach it. “Don’t let the Bible get in the way of my political agenda,” is a problem whether it comes from the right or the left.
—
Pastors learn to pastor by pastoring, just like farmers learn to farm by farming, and musicians learn to play an instrument by playing. Yes, book learning is essential and helpful. But translating theological knowing into wise pastoral practice is an art and a skill. It is rooted in the gift of the Holy Spirit given to a man in his ordination (1 Timothy 4:14), but that gift must be exercised, cultivated, and honed.
—
The gospel enables the Christian to make fear and worry his punching bag.
—
While politicians obsess over economic inequality in Western nations, financial inequities are not the real issue. The great inequality in the modern world is not economic but familial. Those who come from in-tact families generally have an incalculable advantage over those who do not. The rise of identity politics, the secularization of our culture, and the general anxiety and misery that pervade so much of modern life, can all be traced back to the breakdown of the family. The failure of families to form when they should have, or the dissolution of families that have formed, have left a deep scar that cannot easily be healed. Mary Eberstadt has argued powerfully that the decline of Christian influence in our culture can be traced back to the dissolution of family life. People who grow up fatherless are (not surprisingly) skeptical of a faith that prays “Our Father.” While we often hear about privilege tied to race or gender or IQ or physical attractiveness or athletic ability, the greatest natural privilege of them all is to grow up with married parents who love you. There is no better launching pad for a successful life than this privilege, and when it lacking, it is incredibly difficult to compensate for its absence.
—
The “cool Christianity” of more progressive churches and the “nice Christianity” of winsome evangelical churches have something in common – they both accommodate themselves to the world in order to fit in and avoid giving offense.
—
The promises of Scripture enables the Christian to make fear and worry his punching bag. Hit fear with the right jab of God’s sovereignty. Assault anxiety with the left hook of God’s promise to never leave or forsake us. If you’re in a streetfight with feelings of guilt, come at them with the haymaker of forgiveness promised through Christ’s shed blood. Throw worry the knockout punch of guaranteed glory in the world to come.
—
Prayer triangulates our problems. Without prayer, it is you vs. your problem, and the problem is often too big for you to solve. Prayer makes it you+God against your problem. And God can solve any problem, no matter how big because he is bigger than every problem.
—
As people get older, they often get nostalgic for their youth. They like to listen to the same music they listened to in their teens. They want to visit the places that made an impression upon them in those younger years. In one sense, this is completely innocent. The nostalgia could be about remembering when we were healthier, stronger, mentally sharper. It could be driven by found memories of a childhood home. There’s a kind of yearning or longing for simpler times that is not problematic.
But I fear that at least some forms of nostalgia are not so innocent. In some cases it’s not just yearning for those simpler times, but a fear of what comes with maturity. It’s thinking back to a time in life when we had fewer responsibilities – and with that can come a very real desire to escape the responsibilities of adulthood. This is the kind of nostalgia that keeps middle-aged people wanting to live like teenagers. It’s the kind of thing that keeps people seeking the perpetual youth instead of growing older gracefully. It’s the kind of thing that stunts growth and blocks maturation and keeps us from developing the competencies and consciousness that should come with adulthood.
It’s not a bad thing that life seems to get harder as we get older. In fact, it’s generally a design feature. Life gets more difficult because God wants us to grow stronger and grittier with age. He wants our faith to continue to mature. There should never be a point in life where we simply put it on cruise control and hope to coast up to the finish line. God keeps sending us trials because he wants to continue growing us. So, yes, a touch of nostalgia for your youth is not a bad thing from time to time. But your calling is to embrace the present and the future God has for you. Your calling is to embrace your trials, to rise to the occasion with each new difficulty in life, to continue maturing to the end.
(Bob Seger sang about both kinds of nostalgia. In “Like a Rock,” he looks back twenty years on the strength he had as an 18 year old — no problem with that. “Against the Wind” represents a more negative kind of nostalgia.)
—
If the church won’t storm the gates of hell with the gospel,
Hell will storm the gates of the church with the world.
—
“All the prophets did foresee in spirit, that Christ should become the greatest transgressor, murderer, adulterer, thief, rebel, blasphemer, etc., that ever was . . . for he being made a sacrifice, for the sins of the whole world, is not now an innocent person and without sins . . . our most merciful Father . . . sent his only Son into the world and laid upon him the sins of all men, saying:
Be thou Peter that denier; Paul that persecutor, blasphemer and cruel oppressor; David that adulterer; that sinner which did eat the apple in Paradise; that thief which hanged upon the cross; and, briefly, be thou the person which hath committed the sins of all men; see therefore that thou pay and satisfy for them. Here now cometh the law and saith: I find him a sinner . . . therefore let him die upon the cross . . .’”
– Martin Luther, on substitutionary atonement
—
The Westminster divines believed in a 6 day creation and a young earth. This is the confessional position. Calvin and Luther held to the same. The phrase “in the space of six days” had a well established, quasi-technical meaning by the time the divines wrote the Confession.
—
The Westminster Confession’s teaching on the civil law and the civil magistrate, in both its original form and its American revision, commits all Presbyterian pastors to general equity theonomy and some form of Christian nationalism. These are the standard, historically Reformed/Presbyterian positions.
—
Over-regulation in an industry results in its strangulation. That’s what has been happening in the auto industry for years, as increasing safety regulations collide with increasing fuel economy regulations. We passed the point of diminishing returns in both areas a long time ago. It’s time set the car industry free from extreme government control for the good of the average American, whose car is a key to a great deal of productivity and freedom.
—
https://twitter.com/FrankCapraJr/status/193798241625538989
Something tells me this man (who I know nothing about) was not actually shut down for his “intemperance.” I think it was something else….not how he said it, but what he said….
Frankly, this kind of procedural dishonesty is the kind of thing that torpedoes faithful denominations and sinks them in a sea of progressivism. It gives the liberals the upper hand without even having to work for it. How many conservatives will not come to the mic now for fear of being accused of intemperance as soon as they express their convictions in a calm, reasonable way?
Conservatives in the PCA should not tolerate getting shut down like this. I would have expected better from the new moderator, who has done a lot of good work in some areas and generally seems to be on the more conservative end of the PCA spectrum.
I was ordained in the PCA and spent several years there before moving over to the CREC. Some years ago, I was asked what’s the major difference between the PCA and the CREC. In a tongue-in-cheek kind of way I said, “It’s the level of testosterone in the room at General Assembly.” I suppose like all jokes, it had a grain of truth in it, but I wasn’t really intending to insult anyone. However, seeing this kind of “tone police” display used to shut down a real argument (and one that needs to take place) at General Assembly makes me think that I was actually right on the money. There are many, many great godly and masculine men in the PCA. I hope they do something about this. I still have friends and family in the PCA and want to see her flourish.
—
American men were the heroes of the 20th century. Anyone who says otherwise either lacks a moral compass or has been brainwashed by either Nazism or communism.
—
An older post:
The reason for pushback on “Ordo Amoris” right now is because it exposes the absolute stupidity of so much of American politics, right and left, for the last couple of generations. If “Ordo Amoris” is true, it threatens funding for the next pointless war on the other side of the world. American politicians have been inverting “Ordo Amoris” for a long time now – taxing their neighbors to support strangers. The progressive and Neo-con policies and worldviews have depended on inverting “Ordo Amoris.” Vance pointing this out is unbearable to them.
—
Just a reminder: It’s possible to believe the “good guys” (minus Stalin) won World War II AND believe the post-war consensus is a real problem. It’s also possible to believe the post-war consensus was just an intensification of trends that were already present in Western civilization. https://cleartruthmedia.com/articles/the-post-war-consensus-how-we-defeated-the-nazis-and-lost-our-souls… https://tpcpastorspage.com/2025/03/18/post-which-war-consensus/
—
Just a reminder: True Calvinism has always been a cultural force.
Article version here.
Podcast version here.
—
Just a reminder: It’s possible to believe race is a real biological category (albeit a fuzzy and malleable one) AND believe there is such a sin as racism (in the form of race-based malice/failure to love).
—
Just a reminder: Progressivism is a Satanic movement that gets most of its traction from making false accusations against the righteous.
—
I was asked to provide some thoughts on this article, in light of the fact that the CREC is not exactly a welcome home to the young men who comprise the “new right” (aka “far right” or “alt right”). Here goes (sorry I cannot give the wider context for my response here):
It could be argued the CREC came into existence because other Reformed denominations were compromised in various ways and were not open to rethinking aspects of the Reformed tradition that may have been mistaken (eg, paedocommunion). The CREC was considered extreme “far right” by many until recently. Whether or not the men of the “new right” can fit into the CREC is an open question at this point. We will have to see how some things unfold. I know there are certain views are simply not going to be welcome in the CREC — and in general, I’m glad we have those boundaries.
But consider the issue from the other perspective: If no Reformed denomination is rightwing enough for these young men, are they willing to rethink their own positions? Or at least be patient and let others catch up to where they are? If no institution holds your views, that should at least give you pause — right?
Measnwhile, even as “far right” men find the CREC lacking, the fact that we are now “moderate” could actually have some tangible real world benefits. It’s a new role for us, but it might actually work to our advantage.
I liked a lot of what Spencer is saying in his article. Overall, I love Spencer and his work and his heart. He’s done a great job showing the truth about Hitler and Nazism against historical revisionists. But I do think he went too far in a couple instances. For example: There is a lot of valuable stuff in the “red pill” manosphere world – I think he was too dismissive of its benefits for men. I read Rollo Tomassi maybe 10 years ago – and over time I watched more and more of his ideas get “mainstreamed” and Christianized in our circles (even though almost no one would cite him or acknowledge him, and I got in a lot of trouble when I mentioned him in my “Folk Wisdom” essay which was probably 5 years ago). A lot of the “red pill” ideas are now very commonplace among men in our circles, though they have been necessarily refined and reworked in some ways. Bottom line: There is a decent amount of material in the manosphere world that can be commandeered by Christians and put to good use. Yes, a lot of it is trash, but the secular and Christian sides of the manosphere have to be distinguished — the Christian side of the manosphere is helping a lot of men.
I think the same kind of thing could potentially happen with the race and ethnicity discussion in the years to come – and we arrive at a kind of mediating or more nuanced/refined position. The guys I know who hold these “far right” views have held them less than 3 years, in many cases less than one year. But there’s no way anyone can master a field that quickly. There’s no way someone can rethink issues of this magnitude that quickly. This is all about reactivity, not about wise and principled reflection. There needs to be a lot less heat and lot more light. Less tweeting and more in depth education/study. No one is going to get a real and full education on *any* topic on Twitter or even from podcasts. I’m suspicious of men who become rabid proponents of a view they just learned about. It shows a lack of depth and wisdom. There are problems with some of the “colorblind” approaches to race, and there are major problems with the “multicultural” approiach to cultural issues. So I understand why some men are frustrated and feel like many conservatives are actually living under the progressive gaze. But let’s be real: Doug Wilson is not about to go the way of David French. And many of us, Wilson and myself included, have seen this kinist and racist stuff play out before and know firsthand what it can do. It really is damaging. I appreciate Wilson’s attempts to build up the CREC’s immunity to it.
You can also look at FV. It was explosive at first, and very costly to many men in terms of their career, reputation, etc. But in many ways FV won – it certainly had a massive impact so that even a lot of churches that rejected FV ended up being influenced by it in good ways. But it’s taken 20+ years for that to happen. FV’s influence forced a lot of anti-FVers to consider things like historic liturgy, weekly communion, and getting kids to the table earlier (even in a credocommunion framework). It pressed the issue on homiletic application vs. latent antinomianism, the importance of congregational singing and psalmody, the ecclesial implications of justification by faith, and so on — all issues that many others are now discussing, often in a positive light. The FV did not win in the ecclesiastical courts, but it did shift the Overton Window in some areas.
I think Spencer is issuing a warning because he’s seen bad fruit – and I have seen it too. I’ve seen SC turn well adjusted happy young men into angry, disrespectful race obsessed morons. He is right to sound an alarm, even if he’s overreacting at points.
The biggest disagreement I have with his article is using this stuff as a test of church membership. The way he worded the question to ask young men was weird and while it would be good for pastors to know what young men joining their churches think about the Jews, etc., it should not automatically be a basis for refusing someone membership (or pursuing church discipline). Historical views on such issues cannot be tests of orthodoxy in themselves, and thus cannot be litmus tests for membership. But this cuts both ways — the young “new right” guys cannot make *their* views tests of denominational faithfulness. And if they promote their views in a congregation in a way that becomes divisive, they could certainly make themselves worthy of church discipline on those grounds. I think this issue has so many variables and nuances, each man would have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
I know of a young man who joined a CREC church a while ago and who made a point to tell the elders in his membership interview that he did not agree with Wilson on the Jews, WW2, etc. He was asked what books led him that direction. He had not read a single book. As he was asked more questions, it was obvious he had no clue about the real issues, the historical facts, etc. He just liked the guys who pushed the new narrative. I don’t know if he still holds those views or not – but he has not been a divisive presence in that church so it has not been an issue.
If the younger generation of men would be patient and pursue reformation instead of revolution in their churches, they will be far, far more effective. If the point is to change the world, and not just tweet about the world, I think that’s the way to go. The younger men will soon be the older men – and potentially in positions of leadership – in the blink of an eye.
The only alternative is to start another denomination. And if this stuff becomes overly disruptive in local churches, that’s what it will come to. Maybe that’s what ultimately happens with Ogden (?) and others on “new right” side of things. But then you are talking about forming a new denomination whose central identity is a particular view of the Jews and race. If younger men want to do that, fine, but it’s hard for me to imagine that being healthy and effective (or even viable, to be honest). As things stand now, I think it would be a disaster.
What I am watching to see is if/when this “far right” view of the Jews and race gets real world political traction. It’s a very different approach than the one MAGA has taken. MAGA has (wisely and rightly in my opinion) avoided racial identity politics. As of today, not only is there no denomination I know of that welcomes (and/or teaches) these “far right” views, but there is no political home for them either. There are no persons in power taking the “far right” view of race or adopting white identity politics as their platform. I don’t see any immediate funding for this kind of thing either – and the only way to get power is to have funding. What does a “far right” political platform look like? What does the “far right” want to see happen to Jews? What does a white identity platform look like according to the “far right”? I have asked that question many times and the level of content I get back is very thin. I don’t think any of the far right guys I know are anywhere close to being ready for prime time. Of course, since I disagree with their views, I am glad for them to stay marginalized. And I am not really interested in spending a lot of time on these issues in my public ministry since I am not convinced the “new right” is really viable outside of a bubble on X. Some things that happen on X do make a real world impact, but a lot of things do not. And this problem is compounded by the fact that so many “new right” guys are anons online. This is not like the American founding fathers using pen names. Anonymity on social media today means you have a hard ceiling on how much influence you can exert.
Most of the young men I’ve seen embrace the “far right” do not have the ability to start institutions, whether political or ecclesiastical. They aren’t leaders. They are, at best, amateur pundits. It’s easy to tweet. It’s hard to actually build cultures and institutions. It’s not even easy to influence or redirect existing institutions. But if you want to see your views impact the world, that’s what you have to do. What’s been done in Moscow deserves respect — they built their platform out of nothing, overcoming a great deal of opposition along the way. Can the “new right” duplicate something even on that scale? Not right now, even if Ogden gets lumped into the “new right” (I’m actually not sure how well they fit), they are not there yet.
I’m not a prophet. The “far right” might rise to power in my lifetime. Who knows? But at this point, I remain doubtful. And while the CREC has a lot of maturing to do, I remain bullish about its future because I still think it’s by far the healthiest Reformed denomination – and forming a rival “far right” denomination will not be easy, should anyone choose to undertake it.
TPC Pastor's Page 