https://christoverall.com/article/concise/why-we-need-cultural-christianity/
Mitzenmacher ignores Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 5 - what have I to do with those who are outside? God will judge them.
The apostle doesn't seem to share this concern and his posture here and elsewhere seems to militate against this. The problem is a misunderstanding of the Kingdom of God. Is it covenantal, redemptive, and eschatological? If it is these things, then in this present evil age it was limited to the work of the Spirit and the realm of Christ's Body. In other words the Church is the Kingdom in this present evil age.
But for Mitzenmacher and others of like mind the Kingdom is bigger than the Church. It's about culture and civilization and thus the unbeliever is (to some extent) part of the Kingdom as well. It's the classic misappropriation of the Wheat and the Tares, assuming the field is the Church or Christendom (a redefinition of the Church) rather than the world. The correct reading leads to an antithesis between Christ and Culture (as one misguided thinker framed it). It's the wheat and the tares. Caesar's coin is Caesar's and what belongs to God belongs to God alone.
Culture is transformed by the gospel and regenerate people living out their faith. But we're not given any real reason or expectation to expect great success on this front. Often the picture painted for us by the New Testament is quite the opposite. The number of saved will be small and the Church Age or Last Days will be plagued by false teachers and false Christianity.
Mitzenmacher creates various false dilemmas by asking a lot of questions the New Testament doesn't ask. He's framing things in a way that forces New Testament Christians (who reject his framing) to say they're okay with sin, and if not then they should be sponsoring efforts to legislate Christian morality - which (by the way) relies on an unbiblical understanding of ethics and morality. The dilemmas are not biblically rooted but result from the assumption of Christendom and the questions it spawns, and now in particular the amplified crisis connected to its implosion.
Peter and Paul are not concerned with the Roman Empire and its morality - the notion is actually absurd. The powers that be are ordained by God. Submission to this principle is an act of faith - regardless of whether or not we like the government.
It's not a matter of us saying the unbeliever can do as he pleases, but one in which his problem is not that he's failing to follow God's law, but that he's an unregenerate idolater that hates God and needs to repent and believe. Making him into a hypocrite or Pharisee neither glorifies God or helps the lost person - or society for that matter as history repeatedly testifies.
The gospel message is the means. The Holy Spirit works through the foolishness of preaching and the Church and its sacraments. There's nothing in the New Testament to suggest the Holy Spirit works through the state and its legislation, its police, courts, and its armies. To extract this from Romans 13 is to misunderstand the passage. Such exegesis is certainly common enough and by now has a long pedigree, but it makes fundamental mistakes in reading the passage - the first being that the chapter division with the preceding passage is artificial and breaks the train of thought and the imperative connection. Nero's Rome was not in covenant with God nor was it a means for the Holy Spirit to work. This was true with other providential 'servant' states such as Babylon and Assyria and its no less the case when it comes to the British and American Empires - or even China under Xi Jinping. The point is the state is common grace or Providential restraint, not covenantal, not redemptive. Even a bad state is better than no state at all - which is further confused given the deeply misguided popularity of Libertarian thinking in Christian circles. But for Christians, it makes little difference, as we're called to live out our faith regardless and always as pilgrims and exiles in opposition to the world. In fact, the greater challenge at times can be to live this out in opposition to the kind pseudo-Christian government so many like Mitzenmacher seek.
I fully realize this is at odds with Reformed Confessionalism, though some contemporary Confessionalists have challenged the old paradigm on the basis of the American Revision to the Westminster Confession of 1788 and its still undeveloped implications. For my part I'm willing to say the Confessions are wrong on these points and some others as well. They are helpful to a point but certainly not authoritative and carry no weight in terms of a Biblical exploration of these questions. The Confessions reflect the traditions and ideology of the Magisterial Reformation which (on these points) was completely in error. And the uncomfortable and ironic reality is this - most contemporary Confessionalists don't really 'sign on' with the Magisterial Reformation either and so they find themselves elevating these documents to deutero-canonical status and lambasting those (like me) who reject them - even while they themselves embrace them only in part or in modified form.
As was inevitable, Mitzenmacher turns to Jonah as the example of God calling a non-covenantal people to repentance. I argue that he has missed the point of Jonah as well as the pivotal issue of Jonah's recalcitrance. Jonah's prophetic mission is judgment against the covenant people for their apostasy and its a harbinger/foreshadowing of the coming Church age and the gentile inclusion. It's a testimony to grace, even though it's in typological form and as such it falls short of the actual thing. The Ninevites were not saved - they were not brought into the covenant and the worship at the Jerusalem Temple. To extract from this episode the notion that God wants moral government for unregenerate people is to miss the point. And again, this is Assyria, one of the most brutal and wicked empires that ever existed. There's no evidence to suggest the Assyrians then set aside their destructive and murderous conquests.
In other words the Jonah episode is not prescriptive. It's part of redemptive-historical development in the same way the Naaman episode is, Elijah's stay with the widow of Zarephath (and the raising of her son), or the Syro-Phoenician and Samaritan women in the gospels. In the latter's case, the epochal shift was taking place in their lifetimes.
Calvin was wrong, and what he did in Geneva was wrong and obviously there was a tremendous backlash in subsequent generations leaving the place far worse off. The confusion over the Ten Commandments also clouds this discussion. The Decalogue is an expression of the Eternal Moral Law but it is not the expression of the Eternal Moral Law. Read it carefully. It's covenantal and specifically tied to the Old Covenant and its context. The statements do not apply to Roman Gaul, Britain, or America. Use the Decalogue by all means. Read it, meditate on it. But it's folly to try and legislate it or carve it on to public buildings. In fact the latter creates as many problems and dilemmas as it seeks to solve. It spawns confusion as today's situation testifies.
The Three-fold Division of the Law as expressed in the Confessions is imposed, unwarranted, and unbiblical, and does not reflect the nature of the covenant polity. The Confessions (once again) are wrong. And this error gives people like Mitzenmacher a toe-hold to make their arguments, but it's a case of error piling on to error.
What it comes down to is this - it was stated by John Cotton - Better be hypocrites than profane. Some Christians seem to think that a veneer of Christianity is better than sincere unbelief. I argue that such a veneer is ultimately far more destructive and I would point to Cotton's New England, Kuyper's Netherlands, and Calvin's Geneva as examples. While I haven't lived in the Bible Belt for nearly thirty years, I don't miss it at all. I found it disingenuous and superficial. The loss of antithesis, the loss of the distinction between the sacred and profane is the result of such efforts and the model here advocated by Mitzenmacher. The result is that everything becomes sacred and thus nothing is sacred. The term no longer has any meaning, any referent. Everything becomes profane and then it's no surprise when the unbelievers (once they escape the net of fear by realizing they outnumber the actual believers) begin to mock and demonstrate contempt for that which is so familiar but which they do not believe in nor understand.
This is not to suggest that I believe the unbeliever has the 'right' to sin. This confused line of thinking is deeply embedded in post-Enlightenment Western thinking. It's not a question of rights. The unbeliever has no right to blaspheme. I don't believe in free speech or any other rights for that matter. If there are 'rights', they are not God-given but extend from man-made paradigms. We are called to worship. We do it out of a sense of joy and obedience. Whether the state grants that 'right' or not is immaterial. We will obey God nonetheless. The same is true when it comes to the gospel or truth-telling. It's not a matter of free speech but one of obedience. If the state wants to punish me for being obedient - fine. I'm told to rejoice that I'm counted worthy to suffer for the name of Christ. The Evangelical mindset cannot grasp this and actually hates this model of Christianity. The reject the call to take up the cross. Ironically they consider it foolish in the same way the world does which I think reveals a great deal about the heart and soul of Evangelicalism - and a lot of Confessionalists for that matter.
I can live in a society in which free speech and all these other rights exist and are given but what is that to me? I will not give my stamp of approval by signing on to the social contract. I live as a pilgrim and stranger. I pay the necessary taxes and am productive and raise my children to do the same. I'm not going to vote (and give my assent to the ideals and values of the system, and by implication its results). I don't care if the people have spoken. The people are wrong. I'm not going to sit on a jury, wear a badge, or put on a uniform and carry a gun. Let the dead of Babylon bury their dead. I will go about the business of the Kingdom which is cosmic and eschatological in nature and will make no sense at all to those who are outside it - including many Christian leaders it would seem. I seek the welfare of the city to the extent that I can as a pilgrim and exile. There's no evidence to suggest Jeremiah meant for the exiles to influence legislation and try and get Babylon to adopt aspects of the Mosaic Law. Was Babylon (the very symbol of evil) going to become godly by making laws to restrict adultery, lying, and murder? The silly thing is that virtually all societies have passed such legislation by means of natural law. And then ironically they all have loopholes and work-arounds as did the various polities of Christendom, as modern societies do today. And in many cases Christians support these workarounds. This is something that concerns me far more than trying to get Americans to follow Biblical morality apart from the gospel.
At the very least it would seem the Church needs to be reformed before this discussion (which is actually a wasteful distraction) can be had. I'm just trying to make a point here. Bill Clinton calls himself a Christian which we all know is absurd. The only reason he's allowed to continue as such is because of corrupt and apostate churches which vindicate his profession. Of course I would say exactly the same when it comes to the likes of Mike Johnson, Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, or Donald Trump. They all should be put out of the church and reckoned as denizens of the realm of the Satan - not the Kingdom of Jesus Christ.
Much of Mitzenmacher's discussion can be summarily dismissed. It's ivory tower speculation that has no grounding in Scripture. His examples are cases of non sequitur. He clearly doesn't understand the basic or broad strokes of redemptive-history and adds an additional layer of confusion in the fact that he's a Baptist trying to make covenantal arguments that make little sense for him to make. From Abimelech to Jeremiah's call to seek the welfare of the city - he proves to much, he buries these passages under the weight of false assumption.
The Third Use of the Law is perhaps the most erroneous and yet I say that as one who insists that saving faith entails transformation, obedience, and ongoing repentance. Unlike Rushdoony, I don't believe the Mosaic Law is this guide. Redemptive-history reveals that the New Covenant believer is called to a higher order of morality. We are in the Already-Not Yet time-frame of the Last Days and are called to live as citizens - not of a typological Kingdom with all its concessions and temporary allowances, but the actual eschatological Kingdom. We are not without sin and we cannot experience the fulness of that Kingdom in this present evil age where (in already-not yet fashion) Christ's Kingship overlaps with the reality that Satan is god of this world. Our eschatology is not over-realized. We're not looking for heaven now, but we live as those who are citizens of that Kingdom. We have a blessed hope. We live as those who are seeking a city and thus we don't turn back to the city from which we came and count all such heritage and pedigrees as dung.
Christ certainly corrects misunderstandings of the law and the many hypocritical applications that had developed but he also calls us to a new and higher obedience and ethic. The Law-Gospel paradigm as many would present it errs at this point - a case of hyper-justificational theology cancelling out redemptive-history and what must be described as fairly straightforward New Testament teaching. Saving Faith entails trust and obedience.
1 Timothy 2 refutes Mitzenmacher's assumptions. He reads it as a clarion call to social activism and to seek influence in the halls of power. The exact opposite is the case and this in keeping with the rest of Paul's teaching as well as Peter and Christ in the gospels. We pray for leaders not to transform society but rather that we can lead quiet disentangled lives - the very thing Mitzenmacher rejects.
I don't doubt Mitzenmacher's sincerity, though I was a little distressed to discover that he's part of Tom Ascol's church, a man I believe to be devoid of wisdom and basic New Testament ethics and thinking. I realize this will be a shocking accusation to some as he viewed as something of a stalwart, but I stand by it. I have no time for MAGA Christianity and Ascol's understanding of the Christian role in society is unbiblical. His authoritarian sympathies and even appeals to vigilantism are not only Anti-Christian but (ironically) Anti-American, even as he idolatrously wraps himself in the flag. Mitzenmacher seems to be a bit more sober and cogent, but no less mistaken in his understanding. Ascol thunders about the dangers of apostasy - which for him seems to be more of a cultural construct. Ironically this very paradigm is sure to create those conditions on a cultural level. They redefine the Church and the very meaning of the term Christian and then they wonder why it goes wrong after a few generations?
Again, I will grant that if we're talking in terms of the Magisterial Reformation and the Confessional tradition - if that's the standard, then Mitzenmacher is making the correct argument. Some would even say he doesn't go far enough. But if the Scriptures are the standard, and the New Testament is the final authority that interprets the fulfilled Old Covenant, then the paradigm put forth by Mitzenmacher is problematic to say the least. And it's not as if the arguments I'm making have no historical basis or standing. While many voices were heard and a lot of influences were being felt in the Early Church there was nevertheless a qualitative shift that took place with Constantine and continued on through Theodosius and beyond. The Church of the martyrs, the Church that was following the apostles fundamentally changed its thinking and values regarding the use of violence, mammon, and state authority. I would argue this was a case of large-scale apostasy - a cancer that is alive and well within the Church to this day. The Magisterial Reformation did nothing to remedy this but only added another layer of confusion.
I would also argue there were those associated with what we can call the First Reformation that re-captured the understanding of the Early Church and its ethics. They weren't always consistent. Some Waldenses in their desperation did turn to violence against Inquisitors - sometimes in self-defense and other times as acts of pre-emption. Some (like the Lollards) were divided. The authors of the Twelve Conclusions possessed a very different understanding from those who participated in the revolts of 1381 and 1414. And finally among the Hussites we find a spectrum, but the group that survived (the Bohemian Brethren) worked to retain the old views and ethics. They wrestled and were not always successful but even in their most unfaithful moments (as it were) they were restrained and careful in ways the Calvinists and Lutherans were not. The Anabaptists who rose in the 16th century grasped something of Kingdom life and ethics and put to shame the proponents of Magisterial Reformation on these fronts. They did not reflect the full spectrum of New Testament teaching but fell into a kind individualist reductionism and rationalism and eventually succumbed to tradition and increasingly (in our day) they are being given over to mammon. Many have also succumbed to a kind of raw legalism.
The battle continues and it is incumbent upon those who would be faithful to the New Testament to counter the paradigm and arguments made here by Mitzenmacher.