https://frankfurtdeclaration.com
This last summer a new doctrinal declaration appeared that
for all its bluster has received surprisingly little attention. From what I can tell the forces behind it
represent an informal effort or loose alliance that would include the likes of
John MacArthur, and people associated with James White and G3 ministries.
Reading the statement, I found it to be a somewhat comical
stand against supposed totalitarianism – comic, but tragic and lamentable at
the same time.
It is especially amusing when I see avowed Theonomists and
those that fall within their larger theological orbit express concerns over
authoritarian governance, for their writings make it abundantly clear that if
empowered, they would establish just such a heavy-handed regime that in
addition to draconian regulation and punishment, would include harsh laws
against free speech, a regime of censorship and necessarily a kind of
inquisition to root out error.
They would likely deny the latter charge but it's plain
enough if one grasps their understanding of the Church-state dynamic, the
Church making judgments and proclaiming to the state whom to punish and so
forth. It's reminiscent of the old framework in which the Inquisition would
hand over 'heretics' to the civil or secular arm – and thus that abominable and
murderous organisation could feign that it had no blood on its hands. It is
also no surprise to this author that just as the Crusades and other evils from
the Catholic centuries have been revised and rehabilitated, there has been a
growing embrace of Catholic revisionist narratives regarding the various Inquisitions.
Many of these Calvinists implicitly or explicitly reject the
concept of rights as unscriptural. I do too, but I also reject Christians
wielding power or resisting the state on a political basis which is what the
declaration is effectively doing and men like MacArthur and Doug Wilson have done
in light of Covid.
Others, while perhaps not going the full Theonomic route, are
nevertheless Dominionists and yet as Right-wing types (some even having
Libertarian leanings) many of them express confusion and contradiction in their
stands and arguments – confusing theocratic frameworks with the rights
principles of Classical Liberalism is but one example of this. We see this in
glaring terms when we look at the writings of those associated with G3, or
perhaps someone like Joe Boot from the UK. The Bible for them is but a
component in a larger philosophical syncretism that builds on and borrows from
the Western tradition. In some respects it's rather reminiscent of Rome and its
holistic approaches to such questions. But in the case of these Calvinists they,
(due to their historical narratives) are forced to embrace and interact with
the body of ideas known as Classical Liberalism, even if many of these concepts
and values stand in contradiction to Scripture – and certainly to their
Judaizing and anti-Liberal socio-theological and pseudo-theocratic programmes
they tend to advocate.
And on a more base level, not a few have demonstrated that
they are more than eager for fame and financial gain, and wanting desperately
to be the recipients of news coverage they have (in disobedience to the New
Testament) gone after their enemies by means of the courts – asking (sometimes
with great zeal and fervour) the Babylonians to take money at sword-point and
give it to their 'ministries' and 'churches'. The Frankfurt Declaration's
cynicism regarding to state power is feigned and self-serving it would seem.
These people are not opposed to the power of the state. They're only opposed to
their enemies wielding the power – a power they in fact covet.
As such, the document is prima
facie one of deceit. It's not about resisting tyranny. Rather it's a
political document attempting to mask its intentions by means of counterfeit
narratives and a smoke and mirror framing of the issues.
Reading MacArthur's apologia for signing, I noted that he
invokes John 18.36 and yet the declaration (and all that he and his signing
comrades strive for) is in opposition to and rejection of the Heavenly Kingdom that
Christ proclaimed in that passage. On the contrary they want the Kingdom to be
of this world, under their control, and they want to wield its authority for
the sake of their empowerment – all to the glory of God of course, or so they
would claim. It's hardly a new scenario.
MacArthur for his part is the man that has singled out the
police for praise and recognition and they seem to have a rather prominent
place within his mega-church – hardly a pilgrim approach to society. Increasingly
he and those around him have attached their name to Trump and other Right-wing
political causes – rooted in nationalism, mammonism, and the brutal ethics and
policies they engender. His Dominionist-flavoured ministry is marked by a clear
rejection of John 18.36, not to mention Christ's teachings elsewhere in the
gospels.
MacArthur even glories in his shame – taking a victory lap
and calling attention to his successful lawsuit against the state of California.
Once again, The Frankfurt Declaration purports to be something it's not – a
call for the Church to be left to manage its own affairs and for the state to
back off. And yet, that's not what its drafters and signers are about – not in
the least. But by presenting themselves in this way and framing the issues as
such, it makes their document much more attractive to the masses. After all
this is a PR project and so signatures and celebrity endorsements are
everything.
The declaration is marked by a series of fallacious arguments
and false associations. The present government which doesn't align with their
Right-wing views is presumed to be bad, these men didn't like what it did to
try and combat Covid, and therefore government mitigation measures are
necessarily bad and tyrannical and must have been done in bad faith and/or with
sinister motive. It doesn't follow, nor can such arguments and attitudes be
reconciled with New Testament teaching – let alone its ethics.
The Neronian government of Romans 13 wasn't 'good' in the way
they seem to demand and yet even it – with all its evil, served (in the grand
scheme) a Providential and beneficial purpose. Paul says as much, contrasting
Christian ethics in Romans 12 with his outlining of the Christian's positive
and yet unaffiliated relation to the state in the following chapter. This is
not to say that all, many, or even any of the things Rome did was right – and
the same can be said about the present US government. But we're not looking for
righteous rule from Bestial powers. All we're looking for is a modicum of
restraint. Mankind is evil and while his states are as well, the chaos that
emerges in a political vacuum is simply (and promptly) filled by even greater
evils.
Pardon my cynicism, but if Trump had taken a different
approach to Covid mitigation or had the episode happened under George Bush, I
think the Evangelical response would have been very different. Politics and
political angling has dominated this episode from the beginning. In this case
'Christian Worldview' has once again provided a smokescreen for effectively
explaining away, ignoring, or even opposing what the New Testament actually
teaches in terms of ethics. And the drafters of this declaration stand
condemned for they have effectively led the charge on this point.
Right-wing ideology, an epistemology rooted in what I refer
to as BibleFOX, and an almost devotional respect for the likes of Tucker
Carlson do not foster Biblical thinking. They can dress up their talk in
Biblical language and categories but the root is rotten and so is the fruit.
To revisit a point I brought up during the Covid debates (or
more accurately non-debate) – churches that register with state, open bank
accounts, invest in the financial markets, build massive structures (some on
the scale of shopping malls), insure them, and then claim tax exemptions (or
take other subsidies) have already compromised vis-à-vis the state. They have
little standing to begin with.