Calling for a Return to the Doctrinal Ideals and Kingdom Ethics of the First Reformation
https://reformedpolitics.substack.com/p/religious-gains-2025
Hall's work has been repeatedly promoted on websites like The Aquila Report and I've also encountered him in the podcast world. Hall thinks 'gains' are being made with the Trump presidency. Needless to say there are a lot of assumptions being made as well as the typical pronoun confusion (and the thought that undergirds it) that we've come to expect.
Medieval Romanism formulated its notions of law and justice in terms of a fusion between old Roman jurisprudence and the tribal codes and customs coming out of the Germanic world. Over time this would be re-tooled by other influences. The point being - Scripture had little to do with it.
In an oft quoted 1798 letter to the Massachusetts Militia, John Adams stated:
“Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Adams was a Unitarian who thoroughly embraced the Enlightenment and would over the course of his life grow more and more hostile to institutional Christianity. Like so many at that time he attended church services but (it could be argued) this was more a sense of social duty and moral principal than any notion of actual worship, communion, or submitting to revelation.
As such, it could be said that Adams typified the very kind of civic religion that continues to bedevil American society and has functioned to confuse and water down genuine Biblical faith.
Regardless this quote is often cited by the Evangelical Right as a justification for political action and a means of assessing contemporary American society.
Earlier this summer I was in a large city and honed in on an Uzbek restaurant. There were others in town but this one caught my eye because it was literally in a non-descript store-front, in a run-down neighbourhood - a section of ghetto. It was in a dilapidated strip mall alongside a dollar store and some other businesses - but it had no sign, nothing to indicate it was a restaurant.
There is a great deal of confusion out there. This hardly needs to be said but I was reminded again of it on a recent Sunday when talking to a very zealous and proud CREC member who launched into a criticism of Sacralism. He's really opposed to the idea of the Church being intertwined with the government.
The non-sacral sect model views culture as something that is at best inevitably corrupt (and thus to some degree a thing indifferent), and at worst a subversive danger to the Kingdom. This must be juxtaposed with the sacral-institutional model that views culture as something to be mastered, shaped, and controlled. When I say 'indifferent', this is not to suggest that it can be used expansively or with abandon. On the contrary our interactions with it must be marked by caution and even cynicism - and yet without fear. Such wisdom and occasionalism prove difficult and thus many have (in the spirit of the Pharisees) erected the Legalist Wall as a means of protection - a move that is ultimately corrosive in that in addition to being unbiblical it has the tendency to shut down the spiritual faculties of discernment instead relying on a kind of checklist spirituality wed to a (fundamentally flawed) cultural narrative.
Over the past several years I've heard more than one statement or discussion regarding the question of the Church needing to function as an institution or fixture within society and not fall into the category of being a sect and it connotations of marginalisation, exclusivity, and even extremism. The acceleration and amplification of the culture wars and the perceived marginalisation of the Church has fueled this discussion.
https://wng.org/opinions/playing-chicken-with-the-lords-day-1707873572
I read this article in frustration and then laughed when I reached the bottom and realized it was written by Timon Cline, another name that keeps popping up in connection with The American Reformer. This website which has not (to my knowledge) produced anything sound or of lasting value has (it would seem) taken the Dominionist world by storm - just today I listened to a rather disappointing interview with his compatriot Aaron Renn. This article on Chick-fil-a (in keeping with everything else I've read from this lot) completely misses the point and obfuscates the issues at hand.
These discussions and debates are further confused by the influence of Neo-Calvinism (not to be confused with New Calvinism) and Theonomy which build on Kuyper and in some cases apply his ideas (by means of holistic assumption and inference) to their monistic models. Under such thinking, Sola Scriptura is effectively redefined not only in terms of philosophy but with this recasting comes a notion we might call hyper-sufficiency.
The Reformed Perspective/Bredenhof article in question provides a worthy discussion of the some of the dynamics concerning Article xxxvi of the Belgic Confession (1559) and the views of Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920). To many in the Reformed sphere, their teachings are effectively one and the same and yet this is not actually the case. For some Kuyper actually represents a serious departure creating an uncomfortable situation for those who would both champion Kuyper as the twentieth-century Reformed Theologian par excellence, and yet demand a strict Confessional Subscription.
In Belgic Article xxxvi we read:
The Churchill Cult in the United States finds its most tangible expression in Fulton, Missouri the site of his famous speech. Though most people are unaware of this, a small London church (reconstructed by Wren after the 1666 fire) was dismantled in the 1960's and moved to Missouri and is a symbolic platform for the Churchill museum. In a kind of strange commemorative fusion it combines Churchill, Christianity and (it would seem) the call to take up arms in the Cold War.
In recent days, with the Ukraine War, the coronation of Charles III, as well as some Evangelical commentaries tangentially connected to these issues, I've been reminded of the still extant Churchill Cult and the inroads it has made within the Christian community. This needs to be addressed.
Common Grace is a reality, a mercy, and restraint while the Church bears witness in the world and (this is critically important) wins by losing. We win by bearing the cross, we conquer by being sheep for the slaughter. By living as pilgrims and rejecting the world, we testify against it and to the spiritual powers that undergird it – and proclaim a way of life, a coming Kingdom, and a coming doom. This is foolishness to the world, madness, and supremely unappealing and unattractive. Only people who have lost their minds would embrace such a message and calling – or so it would seem. It's tragic that the majority of Christians think the same as the world does on these points and view such glory and victory, such testimonies to the power of the Holy Spirit as pessimism, defeat, cowardice, and offensive foolishness. One wonders if such thinking has in fact grasped even the broad strokes of the gospel message and the core principles of New Testament doctrine – let alone its ethics. No wonder Christ's words concerning mammon (and the security and power it represents) are incomprehensible to them.
https://mereorthodoxy.com/church-architecture/
This was another offering at The Aquila Report. A ridiculous
article and all the more in that it's being promoted by a Reformed-affiliated
website that ostensibly stands on historic and traditional principles such as
the Sufficiency of Scripture and the Regulative Principle of Worship.
This article was sent to me accompanied by some follow-up
questions. It's actually by an Eastern Orthodox cleric and I must say I was
pleased to read it.
For the most part I agree with was said – with a few
qualifications.
Visiting a church last Sunday I wasn't terribly surprised when there was mention of the Dobbs v. Jackson case and the overturning of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. Evangelicals are celebrating this ruling and several others that have come down at the conclusion of the Supreme Court's recent 2021-2022 term.
Visiting another church this Sunday once more proved to be a serious disappointment. The congregation was something of a hybrid between Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism and yet Sacralist thinking dominated. The pastor continually confused the identity of the Church and the nation and begged the question regarding the Christian call to engage and dominate culture.
https://caldronpool.com/the-gospel-has-many-political-implications-for-a-nation/
New Calvinist pastor Matthew Littlefield asserts that those
who believe the Church should not engage in politics are guilty of trumpeting
ignorance. He then proceeds to elaborate what he believes are the political
implications of the gospel.
Many Evangelicals will undoubtedly celebrate the recent legislative moves in Texas and Florida and both governors (one Catholic and one Evangelical) are certainly viewed as allies or even champions in the Christian Right's culture wars.
What should we think about William Wilberforce?
I think Wilberforce was sincere in his intentions and who
can doubt that his campaign resulted in some good? And yet it's not that
simple, certainly not as simple as his advocates would present it. His larger
campaign was with an eye to reform manners in society, and while the
entirety of the Victorian social project along with its gross hypocrisies and
failures cannot be laid at his feet, in many respects he helped to instigate
it.