The Socio-Cultural or Pronoun Error and Christian Antithesis
Despite the stumbles
and setbacks, Protestants continued in their attempts to create a new version
of Christendom. In the centuries following the Reformation and Age of Reason,
the nation state came to the fore and reached full flower during the
Enlightenment. The concepts and categories of the period became deeply
ingrained and citizen-nationalities were ultimately wed to the older concept of
Christendom.
Thus was born what
might be called the Socio-Cultural category or what might be practically
called, the Pronoun Error which still reigns supreme in our day. This generates
a third definition of Christianity.
Christians began to conflate the Church, the Spirit-wrought covenant citizenry
of Heaven comprised of those living by faith with... the nation, its symbols,
traditions, societal and governmental structures and by implication its foreign
policy, economics and wars. For a Christian to use the pronoun 'We' could just
as easily refer to the Church as to the culture and state for truly in their
minds the two are not easily separated.
To think of 'We' as the Church, a trans-national body of
believers to which our allegiance belongs was mired by these new (and to the
minds of many) more day-to-day practical and satisfying ways of framing
collective consciousness. 'We' as the Church-nation
allows one to glory in culture, success, power, revenge and victory. It
involves earthly glory and rewards, it fosters pride in class, status and
wealth. The Church of Jesus Christ, the 'we' which Christians are supposed to
put first and think in terms of... becomes a secondary concern, an unattainable
ideal, an abstraction, even a distraction. And those that emphasise this New
Testament teaching are soon labeled troublemakers and agitators, subversives
and eventually traitors. For under such sacral thinking, duty to the state,
conscription and civil service are not only legitimate Christian pursuits but obligations and even acts of piety.
The 'We', the collective consciousness of the Church is replaced by the
socio-cultural consciousness and identity.
Indeed for many the
debate in our day (if there is any) is over whether or not the state has the
ability, prerogative or even obligation to interfere in the affairs of the
Church. In most cases the Enlightenment- Protestant understanding of Christian
statehood is assumed. Though it was not the paradigm of the American
revolutionaries nor the Constitution which followed, many Protestants place a
sort of Puritan gloss on the founders Classical Liberalism and believe that a
distinctly Christian social consensus should shape the culture and instruct the
magistrate. And in a few rare cases the pre-Enlightenment model of a Christian
Magistrate calling synods and working hand-in-glove with the Church is still
advocated.
Returning to questions
of soteriology, many who think in these Confessional categories would
acknowledge something like the lordship position and yet it would seem that
their sacral concerns have allowed a type of non-lordship to re-surface. It's actually
an old story. Sacralism generates new definitions of Christian. Such a basic
and foundational concept is, under the sacral paradigm (with its
socio-political/kingdom-overlays), subject to confusion.
And further
misunderstanding is brought about by the fact that the Dallas belief system
which more or less dominates the contemporary Evangelical scene is also guilty
of the Pronoun Error. In their case
their watered-down gospel and conception of Christianity is further confused by
the equation of the nation and culture with the Church and a somewhat nebulous
concept of the Kingdom in this present age. Liturgy is nationalised and put in
service of the nation. Handing your children over to military service is a
virtue, its wars are celebrated and the nation's history mythologised.
In fact the confusion
tends to grow over time. Eventually 'Christian' becomes so synonymous with the
ideals and values of the nation that the 'we' begins to expand and include
those who are not even of an Evangelical or Protestant persuasion. At this
point the Pronoun Error begins to become almost indistinguishable from the
error of the nominal position. This was not the case thirty years ago but in
this age of Culture War, Evangelicals and Confessionalists have started to
speak of the 'We' as including Roman Catholics, some Mormons, Seventh Day
Adventists and some Theological Liberals if they still express social and
political conservatism. Even some who don't even profess to be Christian can be
reckoned as such because they hold to these supposedly Christian-rooted
American values. More on that category in a moment.
Between nominalist
definitions of Christianity and what I've called the Socio-Cultural or Pronoun
Error, the term Christian has morphed into a label applicable to virtually any
person holding to common conservative American values and morality. Not only
are the hallmarks of the Reformation forced into abeyance, Christ Himself has
been effectively replaced by America as the breadth, length, depth and height.
The very definitions of the Church and Kingdom have been supplanted by a new
foundation stone... one that seems to be located on the Washington Mall.
Of course this is not
unique to America, it just happens to be the most current and certainly the
most poignant example of this tendency.
This brings us to the
fourth category and perhaps the most problematic of all. I refer to the
so-called Non-Christian with a Christian
Worldview.
In the Sacralist
framework, whether of the Confessionalist or Evangelical nuance, it is
acknowledged by all that there will be people, maybe even many people invested
in society and who contribute to culture, who are not actual Christians. While
it's hoped they too will come to know the Lord in that 'fuller sense' they nevertheless
already possess some Christian traits. It is argued they can indeed have a
Christian worldview and thus while still hell-bound children of Satan under
God's wrath (according to the New Testament) they can nevertheless think and
act like... Christians.
This is sacral
theology at its absolute worst and most destructive. This represents a very
weak and watered down concept of regeneration. This way of thinking denigrates
the transformative ministry of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer. Christians
are renewed in their minds, they have eyes to see and ears to hear and a heart
to understand. They 'see' the Kingdom and live by it, laying up their treasure
there. Their ethic is rooted in reconciliation with God through Christ's blood,
repentance, a desire to please the Father and exhibit gratitude. They think (or
at least ought to think) in eschatological terms, viewing this age as
transitory, passing and subject to futility. Their hope is in heaven and this
affects how they think, live, reason, hope, worship and interact with the
world. To be saved is to be in Union with Christ, the Second Adam. He
represents us and by the Spirit and faith we are possessors of His
righteousness, we are fellow sons and daughters in the Household of God. We
participate in His death and His resurrection and even now are seated on the
right hand of the Father.
This is what shapes
who we are and how we think. Those who think Christian cognition and perception
are something the world can share in by virtue of supposedly common values,
cultural consensus and some kind of shared epistemology are to be pitied.
Because they're either all but lost themselves or more likely have been likely
led astray by wolves in sheep's clothing. They have made a fundamental error.
Let us be charitable and hope they are but babes in Christ and have yet to
absorb and reflect on the teachings of the New Testament. Maybe they've read it
but they have clearly not understood it.
Sacral Theology (of
whatever variety) has a low view of regeneration and a low view of sin,
depravity and the Fall. To suggest that fallen and unregenerate people can
behave and think in a Christian manner is to reject depravity, the noetic
effects of sin and the New Testament's teaching regarding the place of the
unbeliever... in the clutches and service of Satan and his kingdom. They are at
great odds with the Apostle Paul who in Romans 8 teaches, they that are after
the flesh mind the things of the flesh and the carnal mind is spiritually dead.
The lost man with his fleshly sinful thought is in a state of enmity with God.
He is against God not subject to His law or commands and cannot be.
Those that are in the
flesh cannot please God.
We are told that lost
people can share in a Christian worldview and yet Christ said that what the
world esteems is abomination in the sight of God. The world hates the Church
and persecutes it. In one turn the Sacralists have over-elevated the potential
spirituality of the unbeliever and have downplayed not only the effects of the
gospel but the very nature of Christian thought and impulse.
Romans 8 provides a
mere handful of the numerous passages in the New Testament that stress the
antithesis between the Christian and the world. The Church is by definition,
the called out assembly. Sacralism blurs this definition. The Church is neither
called out or for that matter very distinct from the world.
Sacral Theology
transforms what Christianity is. The Gospel becomes a confused construct wed to
the social order. It is another gospel, a false attempt at reconciliation. Its
adherents have failed to grasp the profundity and supernaturalism of the
gospel.
In their critique of
contemporary Western Christianity the Sacralists often blame Pietism for the
bad theology and even the individualism and consumerism found in our culture
and in the Church. Remember the categories are virtually blended as is the
criticism. But in their sacral model they have created a new variety of Pietism
comprised of social ritual and obligation. And indeed for many this is of the
essence of their spiritual life and what gives them the greatest fulfillment.
I'm sorry to report it but I firmly believe many are more moved by politics and
patriotic ceremony than by the rites given by God in Scripture.
As mentioned
previously Pietism is criticised in placing a greater emphasis on personal
devotion and the study of Scriptures, theology and time given to prayer and
fellowship. Both the orthodox Confessionalist and the Sacralist will argue this
is to make demands beyond what the Scriptures require. This kind of zeal is
misguided and produces pride and subversive questioning of authority. For the
Sacralist, since Kingdom life is confused with cultural life, coding a
programme for a Wall Street firm, attending a school board meeting, working on
a blueprint for a warehouse or putting in extra hours at the office or job-site
are (or at the very least can be) manifestations of piety. These exercises are
also expressions of the 'building the Kingdom'. Pietism certainly has its
problems and pitfalls but Sacralism is little more than baptised worldliness, a
substitution of heaven for Earth. It has its own type of pietism, but its piety
is in taking dominion and trying to transform this world into the Kingdom of
Heaven... a notion alien and antithetical to New Testament concepts and
definitions of the Church's identity and mission prior to Christ's return.
What is a Christian?
The terms have become so blurred that there's little hope for a sound answer.
What is saving faith? What does the Christian life look like? The dominion
theology of Sacralism has spawned a great deal of confusion and yet its
adherents continue to point to other culprits and indeed there are many forms
of false Christianity present in our day.
Few would dispute our
culture has succumbed to individualism. And most Christians would acknowledge
the mentality and values of consumerism and the mindset of self-esteem have
certainly invaded the Church. Most would agree the basic gospel message has
been all but watered down by a 'gospel' that downplays sin. Is this the rotten
harvest of Arminianism or Semi-Pelagianism? The Calvinists would have it so and
yet on this point they have fallen prey to the same error. While they condemn
Semi-Pelagianism on paper they too have succumbed to a low view of depravity
and a covenant membership rooted not merely in an outward conformity to the
Church but to the sacral social model. And even many a Calvinist no longer
holds to the old doctrine of perseverance. Rather perseverance has been
transformed into the Eternal Security doctrine of the Antinomian/Cheap Grace
faction. There are many factors that contribute to this watering down of the
gospel and redefinition of Christianity but certainly Sacralism plays no small
role.
Indeed it is no wonder
the state of Christianity has been made shipwreck. The faith Sacralism
advocates is often little more than what James identified as the faith of
demons. That of the self-esteem and prosperity teachers falls short even of
that. They don't even tremble. The fallen evil spirits know who Christ is and
acknowledge Him but clearly such confessions are not expressions of saving
faith. There's more to the gospel than a mere outward recognition of Christ as
Lord.
Continue reading part 3
Continue reading part 3