Practically speaking a
Restorationist mindset means frustration with the state of things and many
difficulties in relating with other Christians. It becomes all the more
confusing because you will encounter many Evangelicals who believe they too are
Restorationists.
They believe they are following
'just the Bible' and they too want the Church to be like it was in the first
centuries. And then more often than not, they'll talk about 'our guys' over in
Vietnam or Afghanistan and how we need to stand by Nixon, Reagan, Bush, or
whomever. They'll also tell you about how America was founded as a Christian
nation etc..
The pronouns become confused
and it becomes clear they really have no idea what they're talking about...not
just about America...but with regard to Restorationism. In fact for them the
founding of America is almost a Restorationist concept!
Generally speaking a
Restorationist mindset has led to a myriad of practical difference that makes
'getting on' with your average Christian American Evangelical rather difficult.
For the rest of this series I would like to touch on some of those differences.
The Sacralist has tied political
endeavour to the doctrine of the Kingdom and thus in many ways the Gospel
itself. The non-Sacralist will view contemporary politics and history through a
different lens.
The Sacralist believes there
are great possibilities to be found in the realm of politics. The quest for power
can bring about good, at least partially defeat evil, and help the kingdom to
advance either through social change or setting up social conditions more
conducive to people becoming Christian. Social pressures will drive people to
embrace the Gospel.
The non-Sacralist is
essentially cynical of this quest for power. Believing too strongly in the
effects of sin and the motives of men, the non-Sacralist believes
self-deception is working in their hearts. The non-Sacralist believes in the
sole necessity of a Gospel preached that is foolishness to the wisdom of men, a
Gospel that cannot be brought to bear with legislation but with the Holy
Spirit. Sacralism at best can create a veneer,
a facade of Christianity and is in danger of redefining what a Christian is.[i]
Politics, even well meaning
politics, is not interested in truth, but in presentation, manipulation of
facts, and promoting an agenda at all costs. The truth is only employed when it
is politically advantageous. When it is not, even if outright lies aren't told,
there is at least an attempt to obscure. As with all forms of marketing there
is no attempt at objectivity in the realm of facts. The agenda is supreme.
Some might accuse me of
sweeping generalization at this point, but I maintain that while marketing may
attempt to sell a product based on facts or truth, the true interests of the
audience and attempting to help them to properly evaluate the issues is never in
scope. Any marketing campaign or political endeavour that sets out to do this
is virtually guaranteed to fail. It is not a formula for success whether that
is measured in terms of political or monetary capital. Your opponents and
adversaries will never abide by these rules. Fail with integrity or modify your
ethics...that's your choice. Half-truths via omission are a compromise and create
a slippery slope, a deterministic road to misinformation. Anyone involved in
sales or marketing has to deal with this. You can believe in your product but
in not revealing what you know, in not treating the other person in the same
way you would want to be treated, in other words providing a full and balanced
disclosure... you are in some sense compromised.[ii]
The political Church which necessarily
sits at the core of Sacralist theology is profoundly compromised. It is a false
church that no longer serves He who is Truth, and has replaced the Gospel
centered on Christ's Person and Work with a false gospel and hope resting in
the capturing of power.
In terms of Scriptural imagery
it becomes a Whore, prostituting itself, selling itself, seeking to entice
others, again not for Truth, but for power. It joins with the Beast, the
Babel-state seeking to establish a pseudo-kingdom of Heaven, to make a name for
itself. This joint project of false Church and Beast-state produces a theology
that equates the state and/or culture with the Kingdom of God. Wars become
holy, the use of violence a righteous deed. Dead soldiers become martyrs. The
destruction of peoples becomes a sanctified endeavour as long as the cause is
advanced. Geo-politics and Empire likewise have no interest in truth. The false
church embarks on a road of deception, blood, and great evil. Their consciences
are seared in the end.
At this point some would argue for the inclusion of Means. Often
non-Sacralistic theology has rejected means or mediate tools used by God in
order to administer or affect change. Often a great deal of non-Sacralist theology
tends toward the Baptistic which focuses not on mediate, outward forms,
covenantal signs and seals, or Means. Instead it focuses on the immediate, the
Spiritual, the non-tangible, the direct intervention of God and thus has little
use for outward forms which seem to bring about logical dilemmas and
contradictions in trying to reconcile these concepts.
As is clear in the rest of my writings, I am in no way opposed to the
concept of Means. At this point I definitely break company with the Anabaptists
and I will once again point out they do not have a monopoly on Non-Sacralism. However
I will insist that God alone establishes the Means. Common Grace, the law and
order exhibited by nature, these too are Means that God has provided, not to
build the Kingdom in a positive sense as some would suggest, but to grant a
level of stability to this present evil age.
Nowhere does God sanctify the state or culture. The Scriptures nowhere
tell the Church to employ these tools as a Holy Means. Verduin rightly points
out that Sacralism is essentially a pagan notion. I would add that it is fallen
man's attempt to re-create the Primeval paradise, or create Heaven on Earth. It
is essentially Utopian though most Christian Sacralists will deny this[iii].
The theology of Sacralism generates a whole host of philosophical
questions that when structured and placed together in a coherent system
necessitate and demand the sanctified state and essentially mandate Christian
involvement in the political struggle. It is complicated and not easy to
explain in a casual conversation, especially as most Sacralists have not worked
out the philosophical implications of their views, nor are they aware of the
forces influencing their thought.
Many non-Sacralist movements have in the end succumbed to the
temptation of power and utopia. Some of the Hussite groups and even some of the
fringe groups during the English Civil War did not really hold to an absolute
anti-Sacralist/Spiritual view of the Kingdom. Instead they too were rooted in
anti-monarchical and anti-Imperial views. They didn't like the abuse of power
but were not opposed to the formation of a Christian state per se.
Their ideological heirs live on in what we might call the Christian
Left. These groups and movements are (like what we might call the Christian
Right) all for a Constantinian state. The only difference is they usually would
not be keen to persecute religious minorities or treat them as second class
citizens.
The non-Sacralist should understand that one of the things that is
unique about the Kingdom in the New Testament is that it is not tied, indeed
cannot be tied, to a political or cultural order. It is international, and
trans-cultural.
Sacralist thought has in the 20th and 21st
century been fueled by commitments to Absolute Idealism, which tends to view
all knowledge in terms of the whole or system.[iv]
The non-Sacralist views the Church in the World as a necessary unresolvable
tension. The only solution is the 2nd Coming of Christ.
In the meantime the non-Sacralist is concerned with the peace of
Babylon. Babylon is in no way a Christian construct, nor can it be. What we
desire is a society that functions, promotes order and stability, and allows us
to go about the work of the Gospel. Building the altar-presence of the Church
and living as pilgrim-martyrs is our calling and the means by which the Kingdom
is built.
Consequently throughout history whether it was the Waldensians or
Hussites, or later groups like the Mayflower Pilgrims or the Quakers the
emphasis when it comes to social organization and liberty has been more Social (as
opposed to individual) thought and practice. While we of all people love liberty,
we also want social stability. Not a Constantinian ordered liberty, but an
order that allows society to be at peace.
And even among groups like the New England Puritans, while not fully
Socialist, hardly exhibited the 'rights of man' type individualism found at the
time of the American Revolution. These were folks who believed in social order,
strictly ordered liberty, and the subjugation of individuals for the sake of
the whole.
The key difference is the Puritans believed in using coercion and the
power that developed from social cohesion to bring about and enforce a
Christian Sacral order, something non-Sacralists find abhorrent and not worthy
of Christ's Kingdom.
The Waldensians and Pilgrims often practiced communalism among
themselves. They did not wish to impose this on the pagans around them, but
were not opposed to political orders that lessened the place of the individual.
The famous Waldensians of the Cottian Alps were rebuked by the Reformers for
this practice and encouraged to establish private property among other things.
The Quakers were willing to use a light-form of power to govern a
state, and yet were careful in its use and certainly were reticent to employ
coercion. And amazingly they were willing to lay down their power when the
pragmatics and demographics no longer supported their vision. Despite their soteriological
and ecclesiological heresies, this alone is an astounding testimony to their
vision of the Kingdom, a Kingdom which rejected the sword and refused the
temptations of pride.
The Hussites, Lollards and others believed (to various degrees) in a
socialized construct for the whole of society. It's not always clear how
universal they were in their scope or vision. There is certainly evidence to
indicate the Lollards rejected the Feudal order which labeled men as common or
aristocratic.
"When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?"
Socialism of course has such negative connotations within the United
States but I rarely find anyone who really knows what it is nor has any
familiarity with the various nuances. I am not advocating Socialism or arguing
it is somehow Christian but I want to briefly discuss why many non-Sacralistic
theologies (including Dissenters and Non-conformists) have been less hostile to
it than typical Sacralist and Establishment power-bases. And with it comes a
strong Anarchist impulse which is another that is often completely
misunderstood.
[i] And I would argue eventually leads to a social
backlash. One day the society awakens to the fact that a substantial minority
or even a majority do not actually accept the status quo. It leads to
revolution.
[ii] This
touches on the whole question of legality v. ethics. Sometimes what is legal is
not ethical. For a Christian to maintain ethical integrity they will always be
at a disadvantage in the marketplace, even in the marketplace of ideas.
Our power is not in
man's wisdom, in the wisdom of words, or in presentation but in the humble and
seemingly foolish testimony to the Gospel of grace. We can try and come up with
'better' arguments and ways of one-upping our opponents, but besides being
often intellectually dishonest it is spiritually and ethically questionable.
The Holy Spirit uses mere earthen vessels such as us, but the Almighty doesn't
require our cleverness, tactical arguments, or schemes. We are called to bear
witness to God's love and power and be martyrs.
Anyone who has spent any
time arguing with sceptics and unbelievers will soon learn that argument and
presentation won't do it. The world's wisdom can always find ways to escape
Divine accountability. In the end, it requires the work of the Holy Spirit and
our efforts while used by God are nothing.
[iii] Many forms of Retreatism also exhibit Utopian
tendencies. Transformationalists want to forge a universal Utopia. Retreatists
want to create a sectarian Utopia. A proper Two-Kingdoms doctrine finds the
'Utopia' as it were in the Spiritual Kingdom and looks for no Eden on the earth
in this present evil age.
[iv] Weltanschauung or Worldview. An interesting quote from
Wikipedia:
According to Neo-Calvinist
David Naugle's World view: The History of a Concept, "Conceiving of
Christianity as a worldview has been one of the most significant developments
in the recent history of the church."