However, the author holds certain theological
assumptions which drive his whole understanding of not only how to look at
these issues, but what questions to ask.
Consequently, we end up with some serious problems
in how these issues are approached, the dilemmas created and the solutions
suggested or provided. I talk about this quite often and this article provides yet another good demonstration of what this looks like.
For longtime readers this will be nothing new, but
as there’s a constant stream of people coming and going, I want to make sure I
revisit these points. Sometimes a change in context or just putting it all in a
different way will help someone to see things in a new light. What wasn’t clear
before might suddenly jump off the page.
The McIntire Faction refers to the fact that the
author is a pastor in the Bible Presbyterian Church started by Carl McIntire
among others. He played a large role in shaping the theology and ideology of
modern American political Evangelicalism.
Now that the field has narrowed for
the GOP, my interest has increased (a little bit). I watched some of the
latest GOP debate, the so-called “Southern Republican
Presidential Debate.” This post will contain some reactions to a single aspect
of that debate.
Afore my color commentary, allow me
to set down a few guiding principles. The first two are general, and the third
applies to my observation of the debate. 1) Jesus Christ IS King of the United
States of America, for he is the Ruler of the Kings of Earth (Rev. 1:5). This
means that the only cosmic government is an absolute monarchy. Christians
should simply admit this and quit trying to be sons of the Enlightenment,
acting as if Jesus were merely a private King or the King only of his church.
He’s certainly both of those things, but he’s more than that, too. He is the
head of *all things* and is given to the church, which is the fullness of him
who fills all in all (Eph 1:23). Okay… so far so good? No? Sorry. Moving on,
then:
Proto:
Christ is of course the Ruler of the
Kings of the Earth, and in that sense yes, it is the duty of every person on
this planet to bow the knee, repent and believe. The means which we seek to
bring this about is the gospel. This gospel includes an eschatological promise
and warning. Jesus is coming; this will be life and the completion of salvation
for those that belong to Him, and death and Judgment for those who do not.
Christ is also the Head and King of
the Church. He is King of a Holy Kingdom that one must be Born Again to
participate in. Only those who are renewed by the Holy Spirit can see this
Kingdom which comes without observation, this Kingdom that is righteousness,
peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit, this Kingdom that is not of this world and
not fought for with carnal weapons.
The author’s way of framing this is
misguided and quite harmful. One, it does not make the distinction between
Christ’s universal Reign...his
sovereign Providential rule over the universe as both Creator and Preserver,
and Christ’s particular Holy Realm
wherein he reigns as the Saviour we are in Union with, the Resurrected King who
returned from the dead for our Justification, the sender of the Holy Spirit to
comfort and aid His people, and the object of our Blessed Hope.
Christ is none of these things for
the nations of the world which are mere human constructs all aspiring to be
Beasts and make a name for themselves. He is not Life to the unrepentant but
the coming Judge wielding a sword. He is not a Blessed Hope to those who have
rejected him, but a promise of Holy Terror which will ask them to account for
their lives.
This is not Enlightenment thinking,
this is Scriptural. The fact that Enlightenment thinkers developed metaphysical
and political theories which rejected Sacralistic thought can be looked at as
both irrelevant to our discussion and practically speaking as fallen man at his
best...creating a political cultural sphere which will function (for a time) as
a venue in which both Christian and non-Christian can live in relative social
peace...an excellent setting for the Church to both promote the gospel and grow
internally.
The United States in no way can be
identified as the Kingdom of Christ.
Prussic:
2) The law of God is not just for
private use, family use, or church use, but is for the whole world, for all men
and governments. There are plenty of qualifications to be made, but I want to
stress that God’s law REALLY DOES apply to the President of the United States
of America. For example, when God says, “You shall not murder,” that applies to
individuals, families, the church, and the state. That’s right, the civil magistrate
may not take human life, except as God has commanded him to do so. Another
example: when God says, ” You shall not steal,” this applies to the government.
This shouldn’t be contorted to mean that all taxation is illegitimate theft,
but it should at very least, factor into our thinking about taxes and wealth
redistribution.
Proto:
God’s law applies to the President
in this way...Behold the holiness of God. Behold the state of man, the curse of
sin, and the way of reconciliation provided through the cross of Christ. Repent
or perish.
The Old Testament or Old Covenant is
just that...covenantal, bound to the people in covenant with the covenant-giver
(God) who provided it. Its presence on the earth is both salt and light, a
testimony to truth and hope and a warning.
The laws concerning holiness,
judgment, and reconciliation all pointed to Jesus Christ. They were in no way
meant for the nations around Israel and to say they apply to the United States
or any other nation today displays a gross misunderstanding of Holy Scripture
and Redemptive History. If all the nations were to embrace the Torah, the
Israel would cease to be. Individuals from the nations were invited to become
Covenant people…Jews.
Today we go unto all nations and
make disciples, bringing people into the Kingdom, but the nations themselves
are not transformed into Holy Realms or expressions of the Kingdom. The Kingdom
is God’s people at work in all lands and among all peoples and tongues.
The Old Testament nations were
judged by an unexpressed standard...a general morality which historically has
been called Natural Law. They were expected to grasp basic moral concepts
regarding murder, theft, justice and so forth. Prophetically we can speak to
the nations...meaning the people of the world. What are they to do? Repent and
join with the covenant people, the Commonwealth of Israel Paul describes in
Ephesians 2, the Jews and Gentiles participating in the Covenants (plural) of
Promise...which of course is Jesus Christ the affirmation and confirmation, the
yes and amen of all the promises…2 Corinthians 1.20
To treat the Law this way is to
de-canonize it and to make it non-Testamental, non-Covenantal.
If Law is meant in a Lutheran sense,
in that it is merely the ‘commands’ of God which may or may not include the Old
Testament laws...then again, I would say that Romans 8 teaches us the
unregenerate man cannot be subjected to the Law of God...he rails against it.
He needs to be renewed by the Spirit. The Law has one command to the unbeliever...Repent
and Believe.
The author is assuming that somehow
the United States is supposed to operate in a covenantal fashion. The United
States is just another nation that will come and go. As far as nations go it’s
a pretty wicked one and that has been in no small part due to its Sacralistic
impulses, the attempt to force Christianity on unbelievers and the hybrid which
results from it. The ideas the author suggests will not help in this regard.
I’m pleased that he has not entirely
fallen for the very misguided and erroneous concept advocated by many
Christians that taxation is theft. This is used as a theological-political
point and part of an attempt to delegitimize the present powers that be. I’m
sorry, but as much as we all may be irritated by taxes, as much as they are
misused by the American war machine and flushed down the bureaucratic
toilet...we have no theological basis to call it theft. That’s calling taxation
a sin and thus encourages the Church to protest it. Nowhere are we encouraged
to protest the taxes of Rome or Babylon. In fact we’re told to pay them and
we’re given reasons why. The Church’s political posturing is in direct
opposition to the exhortations of the epistles. Sacralists are making it
impossible for us to live the quiet lives we are supposed to seek. This quiet
is social, in terms of our hope for society. Our Christian lives are filled
with both joy and sorrow, and all who are in Christ will not gain power, but
suffer persecution. That’s our calling and in fact our means of victory. This
is both basic to the Christian life but also quite profound and rarely grasped
today.
We will have plenty of difficulties
no matter what society we live in. We are exhorted to pray for a quiet and
peaceful one, but there’s no promise that our prayers will be answered. The
American Church is doing the exact opposite, buying into the power struggle and
engaging the Church in a cultural war in which the gospel has been all but
lost. And though the words, the grammatical formula is still present, it has no
unction, no power behind it. The Church has sacrificed its witness and brings
no love or holiness, no hope or warning…but instead wields a sword of
hypocrisy, threat, violence, lies and deceit.
If the pagans rise up and overthrow
the other pagans who are imposing the tax, hey that’s fine. If they don’t, that’s
also fine. Either way we’re called to live as pilgrims in Babylon and pay our
taxes. When this Babylon dies, it will be replaced by another hydra-headed
Babylon…but for us, nothing changes.
This is so foreign to the American Church.
There have been people all throughout Church History that have taught this and
warned the Church against the power-temptation. Rarely have they been heard and
all too often the ‘Church’ has turned on these people and persecuted them.
Of course it’s not the Church
persecuting them, but agents of another religion, one that looks like Christianity
but is in reality a syncretization, a hybrid, a mixing of Christianity with
paganism. We used to call it Christendom, though today many prefer the
Judeo-Christian West. Don’t confuse this Sacral and Imperial construct with
Biblical Christianity.
Prussic:
Finally, 3) past sins do not
necessarily disqualify a candidate for office. We all stumble in many ways
(James 3:2). By God’s grace in Christ, we repent, trusting in the Savior alone,
and we’re forgiven. What’s more, we move on, having learned from our sin.
Proto:
This is all question begging of
course. He’s assuming his premise which in no way is proven. Of course past
sins can be forgiven, in fact on a personal level they have to be. If an
employee steals from me, I have to forgive him, but that does not mean I have
to re-instate him in his former position with the same responsibilities and the
implied trust those responsibilities rest on.
In terms of a national leader, I
need to consider his understanding of the law of the land and his vision for
society and nation. The nation is not holy...that removes a huge burden of
expectation, but also limits my expectations and certainly my allegiance. As a
Christian my only real allegiance is to the Kingdom of Christ.
These other questions are secondary
at best. They’re quite interesting and certainly affect my daily life, but they
must be kept in perspective. I can vote, I can write letters to the newspaper,
I can participate at a council meeting. I do so as a Christian and that shapes
how I treat others and to what extent I can or cannot participate in what
others are doing. But I’m doing it as a citizen of Babylon who is a Christian,
not as a Christian who’s trying to transform Babylon into Zion, the common
nation into the Holy Realm of God.
We’re never told to this. It cannot happen, and we’re given no expectation in the New Testament that it ever will happen. Our road is narrow, we are a Remnant people, there are few which be saved and when Christ comes…will he find faith on the earth?
Prussic:
Character... what a funny concept!
Alright, now to the debate: it
started with a question to Speaker Gingrich about his deplorable treatment of one
of his ex-wives. I’ve heard people talk about Newt’s response and how good it
was. Having listened to his response, I can appreciate one aspect of it. There
were falsehoods in the story, as it was told, and Newt addressed himself to
those to set them straight. So far, so good… we have (at least) to get our
facts straight. From there, however, his response was lame. Newt’s response was
dismissive and antagonistic. He didn’t speak a word about repentance. There was
not even a note of remorse. What’s more, he let on that this sort of stuff was
simply a sideshow, distracting from the *real* issues. Romney piped up,
basically saying: “Umm… can we move on to something important?” What amazes me is
that Newt (a Roman catholic) and Mitt (a Mormon elder) want to act as if their
personal lives, past sins, and repentance DON’T MATTER! Do you think that’s
true? Personally, I think it’s crazy. Somehow, it appears that both Gingrich
and Romney think that personal integrity and character just are not an
important aspect to the presidency.
Seriously. Not. Impressive. …or
maybe it’s very impressive, but in a negative way. What do you think?
Proto:
I wouldn’t expect to find a whole
lot of repentance among political candidates. Any man, who aspires to be the
President of the United States has hardly been humbled, is hardly someone that
is used to being brought low by godly sorrow. These are some of the most
prideful and power hungry creatures on the face of the earth.
Character does matter, and for that
reason if I were a Sacralist…I wouldn’t be able to support ANY of these men, for
even a moment. The only one in the crowd that has even an ounce of integrity is
Ron Paul.
Ultimately when looking at those who
would rule Babylon, I am looking for those who are most likely to aid us in
leading our quiet and peaceable lives…isn’t that what we’re supposed to pray
for? Isn’t God telling us this is the means by which His Kingdom advances…a
healthy setting in which the Church is able to do its work in a peaceful
context?
Of course the Kingdom advances even
when we’re being slaughtered. The Kingdom grows either way, the different
contexts simply provide for different types of growth.
The wicked Roman Empire provided
such a context…that in no way validated Rome. Providence empowered it, but it
also fell at a later date, did it not? It was an imperfect but convenient
context.
America has proved similar in many
ways, except most of American history has been Constantinian and thus
unhealthy. We would actually do better under a Commodus, Caracalla, or Vespasian.
Let’s just hope we never end up with a Theodosius like Rick Santorum.
So for me in terms of theology and
character I am most hostile to and suspicious of candidates who flout their
Christianity and use it as a political and campaigning tool. Alarm bells go off
and since they’ve introduced Kingdom and thus theological issues into the
equation my only response to them can be…to oppose them. I don’t support any
candidate, but there are some I specifically oppose.
First, those espousing any kind of
Dominionistic theology or promote ideas tying America in with some kind of holy
identity or mission. I cannot vote for them and must oppose them at all times.
Second, I will oppose those who
promote Empire and war regardless of religious affiliation.
What does that leave us with? Not
much I’m afraid.
What if a Hindu Lesbian was running?…I
would probably prefer that to any of our present options. Please understand in
no way does that mean I endorse Hindus or Lesbians. But we’re talking Babylon
here. If the Hindu Lesbian doesn’t bomb other countries and is willing to
embrace social libertarianism which benefits both her and me…then fine. I’ll
preach the gospel to the Hindu Lesbian too, but she wouldn’t need to worry that
I’m trying to topple her throne.
Hopefully she’ll repent and believe
and instead of transforming the American Empire into a Holy Empire…perhaps she’ll dismantle it, break it apart
and end the unholy dream. In the end such a candidate may prove ill for
imperial dreams, but cannot harm the Church. False Christians promoting false
Christian empires are on the other hand quite dangerous to the people of God.
That last couple of paragraphs may seem
strange, but please understand I’m trying to make a point. I hope that’s
understood.
I appreciate the author’s zeal to
apply the Bible to all these questions but I think he’s misread it. Does it
really matter? Considering he’s pastoring a church…absolutely. He may be a good
man who means well and loves the Lord, but what he stands for on these issues
is not in accord with the Kingdom of Christ as revealed to us in the Holy
Scriptures. I don’t mean to attack him personally. I don’t know him, but since
he leads a congregation and has posted this publicly… his writings like mine
are fair game.