Non-Sacralists have historically been Anti-Nationalistic, and thus
Anti-Imperial. Since they have been opposed to the Establishment order, their
political affiliations (if any) have historically been to the Left on the
Socialist, Anarchic, or Libertarian pole, although few have embraced
Libertarianism in the realm of economics. They would argue sin and fallen man's
quest for Babel would prohibit this and would also argue the unrestrained Free
Market system always leads to monopoly and the wedding of corporate interests with
power. Free Markets are fine but only a local level. And in the end that's what
Anarchism and many forms of Communism are all about... a lack of government
because society is ordered voluntarily at the local level.
As Gorbachev famously said, the kibbutz was what Communism was supposed
to be about[i].
The USSR utterly failed. In fact I would argue (and I'm hardly alone) the USSR
was never really Communist at all. Lenin's doctrine of the Revolution was never
completed. He died a revolutionary success but a Communist failure. Stalin took
over and couched his Totalitarianism in Marxist-Leninist terminology. That's
what Stalinism was, Dictatorship hiding behind idealistic lingo. Trotsky
completely opposed what Stalin was doing, and yet because he was on the losing
side of the struggle, ending with his assassination by ice axe in Mexico, he
was labeled the deviationist.
By the time Khrushchev took over there was so much blood and
destruction, so many collateral issues, they were never able in any way to
recapture the original vision of Communism.
I am not a Communist but I will admit my frustration with regard to
these issues. I find very little honest conversation when it comes to these
matters, and this is especially true within Christian circles. The American
Church operates in a Romanticised dream world and is completely divorced from
history.[ii]
In many circles Sacralism has manifested itself and/or wedded itself to
Confessional traditions. This can also be said to be true when it comes to
political testaments or confessions.
I consider the Declaration of Independence to be an interesting
document but not something a Christian can support. I would not take up arms (like
my ancestors did) against the government due to taxation and bad courts.
Christians have tried desperately to read many other values and arguments in to
the text but they're not there. The Colonists (at least on paper) were not
fighting for religious freedom or to establish a Christian Commonwealth. As
with all wars people fight for different reasons and undoubtedly some like
Patrick Henry fought for these reasons and thus felt betrayed when the
Constitution was introduced.
The Constitution is a fine political document, though it is not
inspired, has many flaws and I think is grossly antiquated. It left many
tensions unresolved that have now clearly become manifest. It was a brilliant
attempt but ultimately failed. Personally I don't think the original idea, the
original structure lasted a century.[iii]
The document has been retained but there are significant shifts which have
taken place in the Amendments and in terms of pragmatics. Since that time it
has shifted again. In fact in some ways it was meant to do this, the authors
granted it a certain level of flexibility, knowing that situations would arise
and internal contradictions and tensions would have to be resolved. In some
cases the solution required a significant shift in the role of government. The
14th Amendment would be an example of this. Constitutional
Originalists (in my opinion) do not have a leg to stand on. The Amendment
system itself demonstrates the Founders were not creating a document meant to
be treated as absolute or static canon.
Confessionalism in the realm of theology, and Originalism or the
Canonizing of Constitutionalism are both concepts incompatible with
non-Sacralist thought. Confessionalism is anti-Biblicist and
anti-Restorationist. Both attempt to establish stability, the one at the
expense of the Bible, the other at the expense of social forces and realities.
These concepts wedded to the state promote a Conservative (preservationist)
political agenda. A state enforced moral order and whether by design or by
default generates Nationalism which to the non-Sacralist is incompatible with
Christianity.[iv]
Not only does it promote pride and unbiblical concepts like American Exceptionalism,
it is inherently racist and thus opposed to the New Testament order regarding
the Kingdom. The confused Church equates state and civilizational values with
the Kingdom of God and other societies (and often races) which do not conform
aren’t different…they’re immoral, perhaps even savage.
In the end, as a non-Sacralist I find
that practically speaking there can be next to no fellowship with other
Christians when it comes to discussing these matters. We completely disagree.
While we may lament sin and its effects on society, our understanding of causes
and solutions, as well as our understanding of society in general, the state,
power and the Kingdom of God are virtually in diametric opposition.
What follows is not fellowship but debate and strife and often an
attempt to break through the massive intellectual wall Sacralism erects in
order to protect itself. What should be fellowship between Christians begins to
look something more like Evangelism.
So what do I propose? In some ways it doesn't really matter. I'm
essentially arguing all political platforms and systems will be flawed and
fail. What's critical is to not fall into the trap of thinking some of these
systems are God's Will, Biblical, or somehow reflect or help bring about the
Kingdom.
For myself I tend toward Localism both in terms of social and economic
theory. You can't build so-called 'Great' nations with this type of thinking.
You won't be able to accomplish 'Great' things and you won't build a 'Great'
civilization, but that's not my concern. Most of the time what history labels ‘Great’
I think can be labeled as evil.
Is Localism the Biblical model? No. But it doesn't have to be. This is
why differences are valid, as long as you're not trying to suggest your
theories are a reflection of a Biblical view. I tend toward this position but
ultimately I am a pragmatist. Free Markets will work fine in some contexts.
Socialism will work better in others. Monarchy might work in some places, and
absolute democracy in others.
How does this reconcile with the mandate to bring every thought
captive? Isn't this man thinking autonomously?
Some have used Paul's phrase as a mandate for constructing systems
which are not in the text. Thus the method employed is induction and
speculative theology, which I would argue always produces a result that is
explicitly non-Biblical and autonomous. In other words the way they go about to
bring every thought captive, is actually to operate outside the sphere of God’s
Realm… they end up doing the very thing they accuse me of, thinking in an
autonomous way and generating philosophical systems outside the realm of revelation.
Nevertheless, I am very much applying the text to my thinking. My
understanding of sin, life in a fallen world, the Kingdom of God, what the
Bible says about power, the law etc... all lead me to conclude there is no
Biblical model and in fact most Christians are asking the wrong questions to
begin with. Their questions regarding society and the state are wrong to begin
with because they've wrongly answered these foundational questions concerning
the Kingdom. They have not understood what the Bible teaches about the Kingdom
and in many cases have misunderstood what the Bible itself is. Rather than view
it as a Redemptive-History, a revelation of Jesus Christ, a canon, a Covenant
document for the people in Covenant with God...they view it as a document for
comprehensive Idealism, a sort of Neo-nomian document of Transformation. It's a
new-law, a blueprint God has given to his people to conquer the world.
Bringing my thoughts captive, I understand there is no such thing as a
Christian State. The State is violence and incompatible with the Kingdom of
God. We coexist with the unbelieving masses. The State serves a purpose in This
Age but being Common (as opposed to Holy) will cease to be at the Eschaton. It
has nothing to do with the Redemptive Kingdom which survives the Divine Fires
of Judgment.
As a Christian I look at history and society, I think about the
theological issues involved and I determine what will work best in this fallen
world? What will allow for social peace and for the Church to work? Isn't that
what we're supposed to pray for in the New Testament? We pay our taxes to
Caesar but our worship, our devotion, our energies, our hopes, our comforts,
and our security belong to God. Christian Sacralism places many of these
commitments into the arms of the state, the very thing they accuse the
Secularists of doing.
Sacralism is syncretism, it is the highest and most comprehensive
expression of autonomous thought. It is man rejecting the Bible alone to shape
his thoughts. Instead he posts the Ten Commandments on the Tower of Babel and
thinks he's now building the Kingdom of God. This is the great poison that
entered the Church when Constantine laid the foundation of Sacralism....by this
sign, conquer. It is a repudiation of Christianity as revealed and rightly
explained in the New Testament. It is an embrace of Paganism wedded to
Judaizing impulses. It is the amalgamation of the greatest threats to the
Kingdom of God in This Age. The Sword of the Spirit is transformed into
bloodshed and violence, a lust for power and an embrace of whatever lies and
deceit are required in order to attain and maintain the power. Its adherents
are deceived and duped, its leaders the agents of Antichrist.
Sadly the discussion within Christian circles usually
ends up focusing on the need for either Transformation or Retreat. That is that
either we must get busy working to change society and make it more reflective
of God’s Kingdom or that the world is a polluted and evil place and we must
flee from it in order to maintain our spiritual existence.
First, I would argue that not only does the Bible have
nothing to say, nor give any example of Transformation, the theology of the
Scripture itself is incompatible with this notion. The state and its tools
cannot contribute in the building of the Kingdom of God. The state cannot
change the heart. At best it can force (by threat) an outward conformity and
create a hypocritical moral veneer, a spiritual sham.
Those that would flee the world through asceticism are
often not really fleeing the world but fleeing the world as it now is and
embracing an idealized earlier time which they seek to emulate through clothing
and other practices. There are those driven by purely ascetic motives, but they
would do well to read Paul’s admonitions in Colossians and 1 Timothy where he
denounces, ridicules and condemns such attempts.
Another option and the one I believe to be Biblical
seeks neither to retreat nor Transform, but maintain our status as a Witness
Community, a community of humble martyrs.
Like the saints of the antediluvian era we don’t seek
to ‘build cities’ but we’re happy to live in the midst of them. We don’t share
the vision, but we don’t flee. We build our altars (so to speak) among the
descendants of Cain and speaking truth we warn them of the wrath to come. They
will hate us but often leave us alone because those in power will realize we’re
not here to topple their thrones, though our message is that in the end….they
will be toppled by the Coming King.
Sometimes the city will rise up and kill us, but we
don’t fight back. We flee when we can, we die if we must. But their kingdoms
come and go, their empires rise and fall, and we remain.
We understand that the Kingdom is about prayer, and
knowing God, rejoicing in fellowship both with Him and with our brethren. We
know that the Kingdom is one of love and kindness, visiting the orphan and the
widow. And by living our quiet lives we do indeed transform lives. People like
me are radically transformed but we also know that the gate is narrow and there
are few that enter into it, and when the Lord comes, there will be little faith
on the earth. And yet spanning the annals of time and history the numbers are
vast.
This isn’t very exciting. It’s going to mean hours and
years of unacknowledged labour often with seemingly little to show for it. We
probably won’t shine forth from the pages of history, nor leave great legacies
in stone. We won’t build kingdoms with brightly coloured flags nor will we have
great memorials enshrining the violent deeds of those who bore those banners in
battle.
It’s a Spiritual Kingdom, something few have grasped
and many have forgotten. God in His Wisdom chooses to exercise power in ways
the world does not understand and He loves to use those the world despises to
speak and bring forth His Word of Life to a dead and dying world. His strength
is best demonstrated by using the weak. The Kingdom of God is about fellowship
in the work of the Holy Spirit. Politically or militarily vanquishing your foes
is alien to this Kingdom.
[i] The Molokans and other Russian dissenters were
initially quite excited about Bolshevism. They didn’t embrace the atheism but
beyond that they were quite in agreement with the whole notion of Communism.
The Hutterites are of course communistic and certainly the Amish are Communal
though not Communist.
[ii] A point drive home in recent years as I’ve heard Al
Mohler and others discuss the Cold War. To me, they have not learned the
lessons from that contrived pseudo-conflict. Their understanding of motives,
their analysis of the past and their understanding of its conclusion are rooted
in Americanist mythology. And as I’ve said before it is startling to be old
enough to watch mythmaking at work, to see people not long dead (such as
Reagan) who are already being transformed into something they manifestly were
not. Nationalist myth serves the interests and aspirations of the Sacralist and
they of all people are the most susceptible to historical manipulation.
Anti-Sacralism is
sceptical and tends toward deconstruction. The Kingdom-attuned Christian is a
light bearer that exposes the lies of mythmakers and court historians. It
leaves very few heroes on the pages of history but once the dross is removed a
precious commodity remains…the truth.
[iii] I think in many ways the misnamed Civil War was
really a referendum on the Constitution of 1789. The nation that emerged from
1865 with its modified Constitution was really a new entity. The sweep of time
between that of McKinley through Hoover represents a pretty stunning shift and
transition and yet again with FDR and 1945. And it may be that 2001 may also be
looked upon as another milestone and colossal shift in the very fabric and
nature of the society and the way it political organizes itself.
The idea that these
folks seem to have running around in 2010 dressed up in 18th century
garb that America today is the same as the late colonial era is just that….worthy
of a costume party. The country is not the same at all. You can cling to
symbols, colours on a flag, words on a page, or point to some old buildings,
but it’s not the same. There have been several versions and re-boots of the
United States. The Founding Fathers would have rejected several versions ago.
And I’m sorry, the words
in political documents do not carry the same eternal weight of revelation. They
do not stand the test of time. They do not rest on eternal foundations. The
American ones certainly do not and those that argue they do, or would revise
them so they were somehow wedded to Scripture now taint both with the supreme
heresy of Sacralism. There’s no escaping this. The problem is not fallen man
and fallen government, the problem is fallen man seeking to build Utopia and
Christians are just as guilty of this.
The way many Christians
view and think of the Founding documents is nothing less than heretical and in
some cases blasphemous.
[iv] In the Confessional realm it also generates a form of
Nationalism... Denominational pride and preference.