Fixing Only One Side Of The Coin: The Christian and The Government

Why have I, for years now, made such a big deal about the pastors and ministries that refused to publicly confess their error, on Covid?

Think of the topic of the Christian, and the Government, as (2) different coins, each with their (2) sides.

Coin 1: The Government

• side 1a: what it cannot do

• side 1b: what it should do

Coin 2: The Christian

• side 2a: submission to Government

• side 2b: influencing the Government

These coins are intricately linked.

For example, 2a is a response, to what one believes about 1a.

Covid showed that many believed that Caesar could close churches (1a) and so they submitted (2a).

They were wrong.

Said another way, because they had 1a wrong, 2a was also of course wrong.

When some realized that they had 1a wrong, there was a resultant change in 2a. They realized the Government cannot close churches (1a) and so they stopped submitting (2a), (though some have refused to confess that they were wrong), and they just changed 2a anyway.

But here’s the thing, if you get one side of the coin wrong, then of necessity there must be corresponding error on the other side of the coin.

It’s impossible to have error on one side, but not the other. No, each side influences and informs the other side. Think of it like the Yin and Yang; if you mess with one, you mess with the other. Error on one side necessarily results in error on the other side.

And today, the Christian Nationalism debates are revealing that many, or most, who originally had 1a wrong, still have 1b wrong. And this is why initial confession was so important…

Those that were wrong about what the government cannot do (1a), were of necessity wrong about what it should do (1b).

So if you start with error on 1a, and if you then change to get 1a right, you must then move on to correct 1b, or you’ll remain in error.

(You see this when pastors and ministries, given enough time, start to say, and advocate for, contradictory positions.)

But wait, there’s more…

When you have 1b wrong (what government should do), you’ll necessarily have 2b (how Christians should be influencing government) wrong as well.

Pastors and ministries will teach Christians to influence government (2b) according to what they believe the government should be doing (1b).

For example, if you think the government should promote and protect pluralism (1b) then you’ll seek to influence that very thing (2b).

So it’s not merely a matter of whether or not Christians are politically engaged, or not.

No, it’s a matter of having a right view of the government, in totality. It is more than just, “Can the government close churches?” That is merely one of many interrelated and interconnected questions.

Said another way, the only thing worse than a Christian not being involved in government, is a Christian who is actively involved but propagating error as it relates to government. And thats exactly what we’ve had for the longest time.

I mean, imagine arguing that politically speaking, it is a good thing when a mosque is built in your neighborhood. And that is an actual teaching from a very prominent pastor/leader in TMS circles.

Doing nothing to promote the right is one thing, but laboring to promote the wrong is way worse.

This is a lot like the Bible’s paradigm for sanctification. Far too many leave out a step. What do I mean…?

Many Christians would say that the biblical prescription for sanctification is that we are to put off the old man, and we are to put on the new man. And that is true, but it is only partly true.

Note what Ephesians 4 actually says:

“…lay aside, in reference to your former conduct, the old man, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit,

and to be renewed in the spirit of your mind,

and to put on the new man…”

Yes, the biblical process of change includes terminating the wrong action, and then doing the correct action. But it is much more than that!

A simple example, if I yell at my wife in anger, I have sinned. And so I need to not yell at my wife, and I need to speak kindly to her. But that is superficial change.

But Scripture points to more than merely changing behavior (dont yell at my wife, rather speak kindly at my wife), it includes identifying the erroneous thinking that produced the wrong action, and then replacing that wrong thinking with the right thinking (ie be renewed in the spirit of your mind).

If I yelled at my wife, it was because I was worshiping an idol. I was either getting something I did not want (thereby depriving me of what I did want), or I was not getting what I wanted. Either way, there was idolatry involved on my part. There were much deeper issues than just my mode of communication. Either way, merely stopping doing what I was doing, and doing the right thing is not biblical change.

And so it is with Christians and Government.

If you responded wrongly to Covid, ie 2a, thats because you had both sides of Coin 1 wrong.

If you changed 1a, and thereby got 2a right, but you didn’t go back and fix 1b, then you did not actually go through the biblical process of change.

We need to move well beyond merely drawing a line in the sand, and telling the government, “you shall not pass.”

Our job is fill out the other side of the coin too, and rightly tell the government, “thus saith the Lord.” And thankfully, we have that in crystal clear terms, all across the Bible. Maybe we should start with Psalm 2?

Sadly most of the people who doggedly closed their churches, are now just as doggedly propagating anti-Christian pluralism, in direct contradiction to Scripture. Some of them pivoted, and they got 2a right, but far too many merely took the path of least resistance, and opened, rather than actually reexamining their entire political theology. And that will not stand for much longer…

(p 3) The DeYoung Demeanor v The Moscow Mood

…for the equipping of the saints

for the work of service

Ephesians 4:12

In parts 1 and 2, I made the case that in all the back and forth over the DeYoung and Wilson article, everyone seemed to be missing the elephant in the room.

I identified that elephant as, the massive vacuum that exists today.

The vacuum is the reality that the big evangelical platforms simply haven’t kept up with addressing the numerous, pressing, very-new-to-us issues that Christians are facing today.

I gave a list of items that have come to dominate public discourse in the last 5-10 years, but especially in the last 5, and which every person is having to deal with. Many of these items have massive, life-long implications and ramifications, and it’s almost impossible to find anyone that hasn’t been impacted by several of these issues.

Just a few for example:

• Unprecedented numbers of people relocating their families across the country for various strategic reasons.

• Covid overreach.

• Increasing revelations of the cesspool that is public education, and the massive shift in schooling plans (ie homeschooling, etc)

• Children being exposed to trans mania, against the backdrop of children being taken from their homes to be mutilated.

• Job loss over jabs.

• Working from home.

• Unsustainable cost of living increases

• AI

• Transhumanism

• The Great Reset and The Great Replacement

• Porn

• Decriminalization of crime..

• Race baiting

• DEI/CRT, which is having massive implications for how the world now operates.

These issues have exploded, sending shrapnel ripping through innumerable families. And that is, in part, why the vacuum is so bad.

The fact that there is even discussion that needs to be had about attending a gay or trans wedding, is incredibly revealing. I mean, we’re asking some pretty basic stuff here…

What is slowly being revealed is that there are 2 radically different approaches to life and ministry in “Negative World.”

These 2 approaches stand as two bookends, with a broad spectrum running between them.

Kevin has given us his summary of the Moscow Mood:

“In short, people are moving to Moscow—whether literally or spiritually—because of a mood. It’s a mood that says, ‘We are not giving up, and we are not giving in. We can do better than negotiate the terms of our surrender. The infidels have taken over our Christian laws, our Christian heritage, and our Christian lands, and we are coming to take them back.’”

DeYoung and others are placing their crosshairs on the “how.” That’s why he calls it a “mood.”

He is critiquing tone, word choice, and posture. And there is a place for that.

But the real disagreement is much more fundamental and foundational. It is not how, but what.

This “mood” is ultimately a philosophy of ministry. This is a discussion of what ministry will entail, and what it will not.

What (or which) matters will we address?

What (or which) matters will we acknowledge?

What (or which) matters need to be addressed pastorally and theologically?

While DeYoung is pointing to the “how,” how do we speak, how do we conduct ourselves, the real fundamental disagreement here is ultimately a “scope of ministry” debate.

This is a philosophy of ministry debate.

DeYoung takes the left end of the spectrum.

Wilson takes the right.

We understand very clearly both the “what,” and the “how,” of Wilson.

Having spent enough time focusing on Wilson’s M.O., it’s time to look more closely at DeYoung’s.

To do so, we need to go no further than his TGC (yep) blog post from 2020.

You’ve already seen my comments at the top of the blog, from when I first shared DeYoung’s article back in 2020, and so I confess to poisoning the well. But if you’ve made it through parts 1 and 2 of this series, then you already knew my position anyway… So without further ado, take a read through Kevin’s own explanation of pastoral ministry. And maybe in the next post, we’ll look at his tone and posture, his “mood.”

Maybe we’ll call it, “The DeYoung Demeanor.”

Here is Kevin’s Article

Review:

A REVOLUTIONARY READING OF ROMANS 13

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist have been appointed by God.

Therefore whoever resists that authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

Romans 13:1-2

A Revolutionary Reading of Romans 13.

This is an incredibly important book.

The title is great, and I think it worth quickly explaining:

“When considering the full scope of all the details behind the epistle to the Romans, there is a strong reason to understand Paul prohibiting private revolution against the Roman empire.”

Page 7

“Romans 13 is a prohibition of private revolution against the God-established civil magistrate. Is is not an unqualified command to obey the government at all costs except if they force you to sin.”

Page 212

“Romans 13, no matter how much we quote it, has a historical meaning that is limited in its application. It cannot be forced to say what Paul never intended it to say. And it cannot be twisted to demand Christians do things that God has not authorized his avenging servant to enforce.”

Page 213

This all has foundation in Samuel’s Rutherford’s Lex Rex. Thus it is not that Decker’s handling is revolutionary, ie novel, but rather Paul is writing against revolutionary tendencies.

This really functions as the central thesis of the book.

In Chapter 1 Decker covers some of the history of the discussion, and the various conclusions, about the purpose of Paul’s letter. This is important because we often seek to discern this question when interpreting other NT books, but this is often overlooked with Romans. Then he covers some of the history of the church(es) at Rome, the expulsion of the Jews, etc. Next he corrects the oft promoted error that Paul wrote this under “wicked” Nero. This all ties together to establish the context of the recipients in Rome, which is necessary for extracting Paul’s meaning. Paul did not write into a vacuum, and this is so oft forgotten in modern expositions of Romans 13.

In Chapter 2 Decker sets the foundation for understanding a prevailing Jewish sentiment against Rome. This posture comes out, for example, in the foolish trap dangled in front of Jesus, when the Pharisees and the Herodians asked Jesus if it was lawful to pay tax to Caesar, or not.

Chapters 3 and 4 get into more specific examples of strife and disunity that Paul was seeking to undermine and diffuse in Romans 1-11, and 12-15, respectively. The disagreements stemming from the weaker brother eating only vegetables, and others observing certain days, are some of the most well-known examples.

In chapter 5, (page 77 of 238) Decker moves to an exegesis of Romans 13:1-2, within the cultural and literary context. This is an excellent chapter. Having worked through the text myself many times, and read much exposition of the text, I appreciated his work, even in a few places where I disagreed with him. There are several very important arguments here that need to be worked through.  Decker argues that the language of submission is not to be equated with obedience. He also argues that the language of subjection, resisting, and opposing, carry more of their original military background than we often recognize and give credit for. He argues that Paul is first re-establishing the fact that civil government is a divine institution, and then against that backdrop prohibiting the (private) revolutionary tendencies by some in Rome.  Additionally, Decker makes the very important and persuasive argument that Paul’s statement in verse 1, “those which exist have been appointed by God,” is not referring to mere ordination by God, but rather appointment to a particular assigned task. He cites Murray in his Romans commentary, “The context shows that the ordination of which the apostle speaks is that of obligation to perform the appointed functions.” Decker concludes, “Therefore, the option preferred by Murray is not to read in this verse the will of decree (what God ordains) but rather, in keeping with the normal use of the verb, God’s will of command (what God would command or have government tasked to do).” This is a chapter that needs to be read, and re-read by anyone that wants to take seriously the purpose and meaning of Paul’s writing.

Chapter 6 gives 22 pages of exegesis and interpretation of 13:3-7. Decker shows how differing interpretations in verses 1-2 set the stage for varying interpretations of verses 3-7. He traces the logic of those various positions in 1-2, and continues to convincingly demonstrate the “private revolution prohibition” that undergirds Paul’s point(s). This is again a chapter that needs to be read, and carefully weighed.

As an aside, Chapters 5 and 6 deal with the semantic range of Greek words and are, like the other chapters, well footnoted. A blessing is that those not familiar with Greek words should not feel overwhelmed by Decker’s teachings.

Chapter 7 takes Decker’s understanding of the text, its meaning and application in Paul’s day, and seeks to compare and contrast those conclusions with other texts in the New Testament that speak to issues of submission and the civil government. This is of course a very important study. Decker’s exposition must be checked by the rest of Scripture (rightly interpreted). Additionally Decker brings in the Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrate, as it is deduced from 1 Peter 2. This is a good introduction to the doctrine.

Chapter 8 is a great introduction to sphere sovereignty. After explaining the concept, Decker shows how the concept is found in historical Protestant theology, even though the phrase itself is much newer. He then goes on to show how Romans 13 and sphere sovereignty work in tandem, with appeals to Calvin, Rutherford and Hodge. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this is another important chapter that all serious-minded Christians need to work carefully through.

Chapter 9 demonstrates ten manifestations of tyranny, with biblical examples of the condemnation of the practice.

Chapter 10 looks at the contemporary application of Romans 13. Decker puts the actions of many over the last few years under the light of all that has been explained thus far. No matter your conclusion on Decker’s hypothesis, or his handling of the text of Romans 13, his examples and illustrations, and calls to Christian bravery and liberty are almost the highlight of the book. Almost.

In speaking of the bravery and willingness to suffer, both for the truth, and for the longterm good of others - suffering as undertaken by men like Luther and the Reformers, and even the Founding Fathers of the US, Decker says:

“Their wise and prudent course led to suffering for a future reward many of us now enjoy. Surely, it is neither wise nor prudent to succumb to present and lesser tyranny for the sake of taking care of one's family in the present moment. Wisdom dictates that we reflect on the world we are allowing to be shaped in our undutiful submission. Prudence would make us mindful more of the future good than present comforts.”

As many of you know, I’ve been dealing with this text almost non-stop since March of 2020 (as the decline in my Facebook friends list reminds me), and on that basis I enthusiastically say that this is one of the must read works on Romans 13.

It is under 240 pages. It is at times dense, but it is not overly technical or difficult. Due to the depth of the arguments and requirement that you (at times) track with several lines of argumentation at once, particularly in the exegesis of Romans 13, it wont always be a quick read. It will, however, be a profitable read, no matter the degree of agreement that you have with Decker.

Politics and the WWJD Fallacy

When the righteous increase,

the people are glad, But when a wicked man rules, people groan.

Proverbs 29:2

Have you ever heard/read someone say something like,

“Jesus didn’t try to influence the government of His day,”

or

“Jesus came to win souls, not wrangle about politics”?

If you have been following any of the discussions pertaining to Christian Nationalism over the past few years, then you’ve definitely heard variations of such arguments, and maybe even made them yourself.

Every true Christian looks to Christ for his example. Jesus is our example. But how we understand the function and content of that example is important.

We all know that Jesus was sent to do things that we were never sent to do; and He, as the God-man, was able to do things that we are not.

How might Jesus behave in a group setting, in the midst of the self-righteous and the repentant? Well, He just might read the mind of the self-righteous. He just might heal the repentant, and proclaim their forgiveness of sin.

We understand that we cannot do those things.

Jesus was sent to do things you and I weren’t. He was sent to preach that the Kingdom is at hand. He was to raise the dead, and heal the sick and the lame.

He was to live as a Jew under the law, in submission to the Roman Empire with no citizenship.

He was to offer Himself as a substitutionary sacrifice.

Nevertheless, this doesn’t stop people from appealing to Jesus for their political theology. But I’ll get there in a minute.

Jesus wasn’t sent to have a wife, with conjugal relations becoming one-flesh with her, to grow old with her and her infirmities, and ensure her long term care, while seeking to prefer her over Himself in the things of this world. No, we wont find that example from Him.

He wasn’t sent to raise children, and all that entails. He wasn’t sent to show us how to discipline a 3 year old, or how to lead family worship. We wont find that example in Him.

He wasn’t sent to excel at a trade and to teach it to His children so that they’d be both self supporting, and productive members of society.

He wasn’t sent to oversee the eduction of children. He wasn’t sent to discern the pros and cons of a secular-state-run education, and decide between that and a private school, or homeschooling. He wasn’t sent to consider being on the local school board.

He wasn’t sent to be the sole breadwinner in His family, and to ensure that after He died that His wife and children would be taken care of. We’re not going to learn about life insurance and wills from Him.

We wont go to the New Testament and look to Jesus on what kind of car to buy. He wont teach us about eating organic. He left us no social media model, and no views on watching football, American or otherwise.

Of course I could go on and on…

To be fair, most people would never claim that He did give us examples in those areas. But that is precisely my point.

So, why do so many keep looking to the example of Jesus of how to be the best citizen in a constitutional republic ?

Jesus was a Jew, and He lived under the law.

Jesus lived as a subject in the Roman Empire. He did not possess citizenship. He never held the office of voter.

Probably every person reading this blog lives in a very different context.

We cannot look to Jesus for an example on voting. Why? Because He never lived in a society where they voted for their cilvil leaders. Jesus never held off the office of “voter.”

You and I have been appointed, by God, to hold the office of voter (and will therefore give an account for our stewardship).

That concept was simply foreign to Him.

You and I possess citizenship in our country, Jesus did not.

We enjoy all the rights and all the responsibilities of being a citizen, Jesus did not.

He never bore the responsibility of choosing the local mayor of Nazareth. He didn’t get to choose the Governor of Judea. He had no vote in who would be the next Caesar.

He was never going to be accountable for such things.

We will.

Paul had the rights of citizenship, and we have two examples of him using those rights.

The first example, he let his rights be violated, and then later asserted them, which put massive leverage on the local magistrates and made them very fearful of dealing harshly with the local church. The second time, in Jerusalem, he appealed to his rights to save himself a whipping.

But Jesus didn’t have to think through voting. He was not going to be held accountable for that stewardship.

Jesus did not live in a nation in which there was a supreme civil law of the land, that He could point civil leaders to. Rome had no Constitution, no Bill of Rights.

He had no input on what the content of law of the land would be. His neighbors had no say in the law of the land. Jesus had the obligation to love His neighbor as Himself (which He fulfilled perfectly), but that never included considering the laws His neighbor would be under. He was not His brother’s keeper, in that way.

Jesus never had to think about how a particular bill might affect the ability of His children to work. He didn’t have to think through what would happen to His neighbor if a particular politician was voted in. He had no say, and He had no accountability to God for such a stewardship.

The same simply cannot be said of us.

So if we’re not going to look to Jesus on life insurance, or what car to buy, why would we look to Him on voting?

Why should we seek His example in interacting with elected officials, when He never interacted with an elected official?

If we’re not going to find, in the New Testament, arguments for and against eating organic, or buying a hybrid car, then why would we look to Jesus on how to be the most loving neighbor in a constitutional republic?

We can (and should) move beyond Jesus, to the Apostles. Which one on them do we turn to for an example of how to raise children? On how to be the best steward of your home? On voting, and being an informed citizen to best love and serve my neighbor?

I am all for considering how Jesus would live in our day, in our context, with our stewardships. But I don’t think we’d find that example in His life under the law, as a subject of Rome…

(p2) The Dangerous Vacuum, and How It Came To Be

When the righteous increase,

the people are glad, But when a wicked man rules, people groan.

Proverbs 29:2

Today I want to move beyond yesterday’s post, and get to dealing more specifically with the elephant in the room; why it is so dangerous and how I think it came to be.

I noted that throughout all the subsequent discussion that was stirred up by Kevin’s article on Doug Wilson and the Moscow Mood, there was a huge, glaring elephant in the room, that either nobody was seeing, or at least nobody was acknowledging.

The elephant in the room, which has been there for some time, is the giant vacuum (not that kind of vacuum), that seemingly nobody but Wilson has been addressing.

The vacuum I speak of, is the almost complete lack of biblical analysis and commentary on the various contemporary cultural and political events, that are all interrelated components of the dawning annihilation of western civilization, and the Christian foundation on which it was established. This destruction which will bring about (and really already has begun) a seismic shift in how Christians live and minister, the likes of which no living person has a comparable experience.

Those of the youngest generation, particularly those with younger kids at home are bearing the heaviest weight of burden, with so many new, unanswered, and previously unasked questions and decisions, while the older generation often bears virtually no comparable weight.

My hypothesis is that Wilson has been doing two things, that are at the heart of the attraction of the Moscow Mood.

First, rather than ignore or disparage the Cultural Mandate, Wilson and crew have been very active in carrying it out with great intentionality. Per Kevin’s words:

“one has to marvel at the literary, digital, and institutional output that has come out of Moscow, Idaho in the past several decades. While some internet cranks are wannabees trying to make a name for themselves by trying to tear down what others have built up, Wilson is to be commended for establishing an ecosystem of schools, churches, media offerings, and publishing ventures.”

Second, and more importantly, as Kevin has said:

“In short, people are moving to Moscow—whether literally or spiritually—because of a mood. It’s a mood that says, “We are not giving up, and we are not giving in. We can do better than negotiate the terms of our surrender. The infidels have taken over our Christian laws, our Christian heritage, and our Christian lands, and we are coming to take them back.”

So Wilson has been very vocal in not only exposing and calling out the contemporary attempts to destroy the foundations of western civilization, more particularly he is exposing those attempts specifically under the light of a biblical worldview and biblical anthropology, demonology, and teleology. And virtually nobody else is doing this, or at least doing this with anywhere near clarity, frankness, and maybe most importantly – nowhere near Wilson’s volume, ie quantity of output.

Wilson is raising his voice, in a vacuum. That naturally makes many heads turn his direction.

And when those turned heads begin looking deeper, they see not only a steady stream of spot-on critique, but an entire “ecosystem” (as Kevin put it) that has been created in obedience to the Cultural Mandate, from which this voice emanates.

Said another way – it is the vaccum of silence created by the mic holders (ie the most prominent men and platforms over the last decades) that then creates the attraction to Wilson. When nobody is talking about what is happening today, then anyone who is speaking up, especially those with at least a generally biblical worldview, will naturally draw attention. What DeYoung and so many others fail to see, the elephant in the room, is that it is their silence that creates the attraction to the Moscow Mood.

Said another way – When Kevin asks, “What is the attraction to the Moscow Mood?” the answer is: “You are, Kevin.”

I dont believe that most of what I have said thus far has been very controversial. But I suspect opinions will vary going forward…

There are 2 issues that now need to be addressed at this point.

The first is why this vacuum is such a bad thing.

The second is my hypothesis on why, in part, the vacuum exists.

First things first.

Why is this vacuum such a bad thing?

One detail whose relevance is often overlooked recently is the fact that God has opened the eyes of many younger people since 2020. There are a ton of young singles, couples, and growing young families, that are for the first time seeking to follow Christ at all costs, and they simply want to know what that looks like, in their contemporary context.

So we have this large influx of people that are ravenous for the way of Christ, and contemporary application. They want, and need answers for today’s contemporary issues. (Have you noticed that the Moscow mood is drawing lots and lots of young people? Coincidence?)

We were created to carry out the Cultural Mandate. In times when the world has been turned upside down, it is increasingly difficult for younger believers to understand how to carry this out. This is one of those things that is “caught” more than it is “taught.” And so younger Christians are seeking answers for how to build a life, establish roots, and plan for the long-term, just like the generations before them. But they have already realized that they are having to do this in a very different world than those that went before them, even just a few years ago.

God has provided pastors and teachers for the explicit purpose of “equipping of the saints for the work of service.”

Regenerate Christians are naturally desirous to do that work. A new heart creates new desires. But these same younger Christians are facing very new issues.

Consider a few things that have become normalized over just the last 5 years:

• Literally picking up and moving across the country to a different state, for ethical, political, and financial reasons. Or, watching friends and family do this.

• Watching family members die, and not even being allowed to hold their hands, or have funerals for them after they died.  

• Totally rethinking the topics of public education, homeschooling, and other public education alternatives; and coming to grips with the extreme wickedness that is being exposed as having already been introduced into the educational curriculums.

• Navigating the reality that children are now being frequently exposed to the social contagion of trans-mania, and the realization that if your child catches it, Ceasar just might come and take them away, and see to their chemical and/or surgical mutilation.

• Losing jobs because of refusing to be injected with an experimental treatment, created and pushed by professional liars and deceivers for profit.

• A huge rise in working from home.

• Costs of living continually climbing to unsustainable levels.

And we could go on and on… We haven’t even touched on AI, trans-humanism, The Great Reset, The Great Replacment, pornography, decriminalizing crime, etc, etc.

As much as I am sick and tired of hearing it, and I am sure you are as well, these are truly unprecedented times.

These are the real life contexts in which younger believers are seeking to do the work of service, and to carry out the Cultural Mandate. And so they start looking for biblically informed resources that are addressing these issues. And looking. And looking… And what do they find? A Vacuum.

Nature abhors a vacuum.

It wasn’t that long ago that publishing books on contemporary issues was all the rage. I’ve literally got shelves of them. But seemingly not now. And to be fair, books can take years to write.

But there is still a dearth of other resources, sermons, papers, blogs, etc.

And so Christians are in search…

(Have you ever considered the fact that most of the NT books were written for the explicit purpose of dealing with pressing, contemporary issues in the lives of the original recipients? Why are the household codes addressed and reaffirmed in multiple books? Because there were localized cultural issues that needed to be addressed. And this is true for many of the topics covered in the NT letters.)

When a vacuum appears, it is never a good thing. When it happens in the context of newer Christians desperately needing to think through new and pressing contemporary issues, watch out!

But why does the vacuum exist?

For this question, I want to build off of Aaron Renn’s excellent work, starting with his article in First Things, The Three Worlds of Evangelicalism. Now unfortunately I know that too few have read the article, or listened to any of his messages, and so I have to quickly summarize it (and now you can buy his book, pictured below).

There are two main parts to Renn’s paradigm, each consisting of three groups.

The first main part is chronological, and it is most important. It refers to the various times in which Christians have lived, and developed ministry models. Here is Renn in his own explanation:

·       Positive World (Pre-1994): Society at large retains a mostly positive view of Christianity. To be known as a good, churchgoing man remains part of being an upstanding citizen. Publicly being a Christian is a status-enhancer. Christian moral norms are the basic moral norms of society and violating them can bring negative consequences.

·       Neutral World (1994–2014): Society takes a neutral stance toward Christianity. Christianity no longer has privileged status but is not disfavored. Being publicly known as a Christian has neither a positive nor a negative impact on one’s social status. Christianity is a valid option within a pluralistic public square. Christian moral norms retain some residual effect.

·       Negative World (2014–Present): Society has come to have a negative view of Christianity. Being known as a Christian is a social negative, particularly in the elite domains of ­society. Christian morality is expressly repudiated and seen as a threat to the public good and the new public moral order. Subscribing to Christian moral views or violating the secular moral order brings negative consequences.

After giving the chronological outline, Renn then continues with the second main part - the approaches to ministry that have developed throughout that chronological spectrum:

“For the most part, evangelicals responded to the positive and neutral worlds with identifiable ministry strategies. In the positive world, these strategies were the culture war and seeker sensitivity. In the neutral world, the strategy was cultural engagement.”

and

“The culture war strategy, also known as the “­religious right,” is the best-known movement of the positive-world era. The very name of its leading organization, Moral Majority, speaks to a world in which it was at least plausible to claim that Christians still represented the majority of the country. ”

“A second strategy of the positive-world movement was seeker sensitivity, likewise pioneered in the 1970s at suburban ­megachurches such as Bill Hybels’s Willow Creek (Barrington, IL) and Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church (Orange County). This strategy was in a sense a prototype of the neutral-world movement to come. But the very term “seeker sensitive” shows that it was predicated on an underlying friendliness to Christianity; it’s a model that assumes that large numbers of people are actively seeking. Bill Hybels walked door to door in suburban Chicago, surveying the unchurched about why they didn’t attend. By designing a church that appealed to them stylistically, he was able to get large numbers to come through the doors.”

“Seeker-sensitive churches downplayed or eliminated denominational affiliations, distinctives, and traditions. They adopted informal liturgies and contemporary music. Seeker sensitivity operated in a therapeutic register, sometimes explicitly—the Christian psychologist Henry Cloud has become a familiar speaker at Willow Creek. They were approachable and non-threatening. Today, there are many large suburban megachurches of this general type in the United States, which to some extent represent the evangelical mainstream.”

And Renn’s third group:

“In the neutral world, by contrast, the characteristic evangelical strategy was cultural engagement. The neutral-world cultural engagers were in many ways the opposite of the culture warriors: Rather than fighting against the culture, they were explicitly positive toward it. They did not denounce secular culture, but confidently engaged that culture on its own terms in a pluralistic public square. They believed that Christianity could still be articulated in a compelling way and had something to offer in that environment. In this quest they wanted to be present in the secular elite media and forums, not just on Christian media or their own platforms.”

“Most of the urban church world and many parachurch organizations embraced the cultural engagement strategy, and some suburban megachurches have shifted in that direction. Major figures and groups include Tim Keller of Redeemer ­Presbyterian Church (New York City), Hillsong Church (New York City, Los Angeles, and other global cities), ­Christianity Today magazine (suburban Chicago), Veritas Forum (Boston), Sen. Ben Sasse (Washington, D.C.), contemporary artist Makoto Fujimura (New York City), and author Andy Crouch (Philadelphia).”

I suspect you’re starting to see what Renn is describing.

Finally,

“Although evangelicals have not yet developed a negative-world ministry stra­tegy, the transition to the negative world has had major consequences for evangelicalism. The shift has put different types and degrees of pressure on different evangelical groups. As with politics, these pressures intersect with different social groups and strategic positionings, producing conflict and realignment within the evangelical world.”

And

“Evangelicalism is in flux, and its future as a coherent movement is in doubt. In part, this crisis has resulted from the failure of evangelicalism to develop strategies designed for the negative world in which Christians are a moral minority and secular society is actively hostile to the faith. The previous strategies are not adequate to today’s realities and are being deformed under the pressures of the negative world.”

Renn’s observations are brilliant. And these quotes barley scratch the surface.

So in short, we have entered negative world. It is a new world, and it is getting more and more “negative.”

Christendom is comprised of groups with six different “markers,” three are chronological, three are philosophical.

There are those who came to faith and lived in positive world.

There are those who came to faith in neutral world.

There are those who came to faith in negative world.

Obviously, the of one’s own “upbringing” will create vastly different personal views, and life experiences regarding the relationship between the Christian and the society at large, as well as the Church and society at large.

Not only that, there have been three main approaches, that are somewhat tied to the “world” in which the Christian was born out of.

There are the culture warriors.

There are the seeker sensitives.

There are the culture engagers.

The key is that none of these approaches came out of negative world. They are all attempts at doing ministry in a radically different context. In some ways, its like being a suburban middle-class American, and then thinking you’re going to go into China and just start establishing a ministry based on how you did things in suburban America. Of course that would be insane, but….

Now we have to admit, these are broad categories, and at times overgeneralizations. Neverthless, at the core, the groupings are helpful and accurate.

My particular focus is on positive world, and those that came out of positive world. Why? Because by far, the largest segment of the American Church came out of positive world. It is a huge block. But more than that, the vast majority of the ministries that have recenetly been mic holders, before the vacuum, were the products of positive world. And that has massive ramifications. But for that, you’ll have to wait for tomorrow.

DeYoung, Wilson, and The Elephant In The Room

Young, Restless, and… Christian Nationalist?

OR

DeYoung, Wilson, and the Elephant in the Room.

OR

The Cultural Mandate and the Moscow Mood.

The wise woman builds her house,

But the woman of folly tears it down with her own hands.

Proverbs 14:1

As most know, Kevin DeYoung published an article on Doug Wilson and what Kevin dubbed, “the Moscow Mood,” back in late November. The article was widely circulated, and created a significant number of responses. Some were in strong agreement with DeYoung, others saw some concerning grains of truth but had less agreement, and others thought the article was precisely the type of thing that needs refuting.

I had some immediate thoughts about the article. I found it very revealing, not so much about Wilson (as there wasn’t much “new” there), but more about DeYoung. I likewise found some of the responses very helpful, for understanding better where people are at. I always appreciate it when brothers take the time to express how they view, and interact with the world. Few things are as profitable to those who love the Lord Jesus, and have a desire for serious “soul care.”

What I saw in all of this, was a significant and glaring omission that nobody was addressing, and I intended to write a blog on that very topic. But God has a way of setting before us matters other than what we intended to deal with. And as is often the case, we look back and give thanks for His wise providence. Now that a bit more time has passed, and after some additional discussions, I was able to add one more layer to what I think is really going on. And thus, it’s finally time to write.

I believe Kevin’s overall hypothesis is summarized in his 8th paragraph (and even if you’ve read it several times, read it again):

“I’m convinced the appeal of Moscow is visceral more than intellectual. That’s not meant to be a knock on the smart people in Moscow or attracted to Moscow. It is to say, however, that people are not mainly moving to Idaho because they now understand Revelation 20 in a different way, or because they did a deep word study on ta ethne in the Great Commission, or even because of a well-thought-out political philosophy of Christian Nationalism. Those things matter to Wilson and his followers, but I believe postmillennialism and Christian Nationalism are lagging indicators, not leading indicators. That is, people come to those particular intellectual convictions because they were first attracted to the cultural aesthetic and the political posture that Wilson so skillfully embodies. In short, people are moving to Moscow—whether literally or spiritually—because of a mood. It’s a mood that says, “We are not giving up, and we are not giving in. We can do better than negotiate the terms of our surrender. The infidels have taken over our Christian laws, our Christian heritage, and our Christian lands, and we are coming to take them back.”

I think that is a good summary of Kevin’s overall perspective on the “phenomenon.”

Note particularly the “mood” that Kevin describes, as being attractive to some:

“It’s a mood that says, ‘We are not giving up, and we are not giving in. We can do better than negotiate the terms of our surrender. The infidels have taken over our Christian laws, our Christian heritage, and our Christian lands, and we are coming to take them back.”

Finally, looking again at Kevin’s opening sentence in the paragraph is also helpful:

“I’m convinced the appeal of Moscow is visceral more than intellectual.”

So, is Kevin right? Is he rightly diagnosing the attraction?

I think he is.

And while that is, in general, a good thing, I also think here it is a very sad thing, because he sees it, but he (like many) really doesn’t get it.

By “it” I don’t just mean that “mood,” no I mean the bigger picture. I think Kevin, like many others, is the fish that despite being told he is wet, simply doesn’t fathom what that means, and has seemingly little interest in learning what it means, or why it is even important to understand… But I’ll come back to that.

So what of the attraction being visceral?

Sometimes folks just intuitively know when something isn’t right, even if they can’t clearly articulate the why. This is exactly what was happening during 2020, as churches remained shut down. There was a growing unrest, as people were told that Romans 13 means “just submit,” but they nevertheless knew something wasn’t right, even if they couldn’t articulate it. So visceral doesn't mean wrong, or even uninformed.

But there is also a bit of irony here for Kevin:

He is… concerned that people are rallying around something other than doctrinal distinctives. That DeYoung would seemingly have a problem with this is quite ironic considering his continued association with TGC, which despite having “Gospel” in the name, rallies around everything but the Gospel, from Taylor Swift to MLK Jr.

While I don’t want to overstate things, this is exactly where DeYoung should pause, and do some deep reflection. Why are Christians having a visceral attraction to Moscow?

Let me go back to some others things that Kevin said, where he makes clear that he gets it, even when he really doesn’t.

“Many Christians are witnessing the disintegration of our Western world, and the Christian consensus that used to hold sway, and they are thinking to themselves, ‘This is terrible. I can’t believe this is happening.’ To the Christians with these concerns—and I count myself among them—Doug Wilson says, ‘Yes, it is really bad, and let’s do something about it.’”

I agree - but it is precisely when Kevin says, “let’s do something about it,” that the problems in his argument really begin. It is precisely what Kevin, and those like-minded are doing, that is in large part behind the visceral attraction to Moscow!

Kevin also says:

“Wilson also deserves credit for being unafraid to take unpopular positions. True, he often seems to enjoy stating his unpopular positions in the most unpopular ways (more on that later), but no one is going to accuse Wilson of being a spineless Evangellyfish. He offers the world and the church an angular, muscular, forthright Christianity in an age of compromise and defection.”

Agreed!

Let’s pause here and consider some very important questions, under two headings.

1.    How did we get here?

 (I could change out “CRT and DEI” with a variety of other issues, such as the alphabet mafia, and the questions remain the same):

How did CRT and DEI successfully invade every facet of society - without Christians noticing, or saying anything, or doing anything, to stop the coup?

How did it take over the schools? From universities to elementary.

Banking?

Big tech?

Medicine?

Insurance?

Government?

The same question goes for many churches, from the denomination heads and seminaries, down to the local churches.

How?

Surely there are Christians in schools?

Banking?

Big tech?

Medicine?

Insurance?

Government?

And Churches?

Can we really look back and say that, as individual Christians, and as Christians organized into churches and denominations, that we did everything right, and despite our repeated, ongoing, well-planned and valiant efforts, we simply couldn’t stop the onslaught of all these ideologies?

We all know that such is not the case. Not at all.

So lets move to the second set of questions:

 2. What is the attraction, with Wilson?

Ok. Remove the crassness, and what, if anything, is the kernel under the chaff?

Is Wilson saying things that should be said?

Is he saying things that need to be said?  

Is he (rightly) connecting dots that others are missing?

Is he righty diagnosing and giving an explanatory framework that goes beyond the trite, “it’s because they’re unbelievers”?

I say from the outset that the answer is a resounding, “yes.”

Wilson is seeing what others apparantly aren’t seeing, and saying what needs to be said, and providing a biblical framework for understanding what we’re seeing. That is the attraction.

People are viscerally drawn by Wilson saying (In Kevin’s words): “We are not giving up, and we are not giving in. We can do better than negotiate the terms of our surrender. The infidels have taken over our Christian laws, our Christian heritage, and our Christian lands, and we are coming to take them back.”

Why is this so attractive? Go back to question 1 of “How.” How did this come to be?

What has recently become exposed over the last few years is that the Church, by and large, has been completely asleep at the wheel, to put it mildly. And nobody wants to talk about it. Nobody wants to admit it. Nobody wants to take ownership. And nobody wants to actually to do anything about it, other than the exact same things they were doing when the iceberg was struck… Well, almost nobody (or we wouldn’t be having this little discussion…).

And now, we’ve reached the problem. The elephant in the room. What Kevin sees, but doesn’t see.

The vacuum. The void. The dearth.

There is a massive vacuum on dealing with these issues. I honestly don’t think that is debatable.  

And it is precisely the existence of, and the filling of, that massive vacuum, that I think so many are failing to recognize.  

Now there are generally two responses to my statement- they are similar, but very different.

Response 1. What vacuum?

Response 2. Which vacuum?

Response 1 seems to express a general unawareness of the vacuum at all. It’s a reflection of a general unawareness of the deficit of positive visions for today. It’s almost a, “same as it ever was,” attitude that is looking for no new answers, because it sees no new problems.

Response 2 expresses understanding that in our present day, there are a several vacuums, discovered when trying to answer some difficult questions about what to do these days.

Think of all the big name pastors and big platform ministries.

Who is addressing all these cultural issues?

Who is addressing all these political issues?

If I want to understand what is happening these days, which pastor, which ministry should I look to, knowing that there is a good chance that they are addressing current matters?

Who is providing insightful and penetrating biblical analysis?

Answer that, and you start to understand the attraction to Moscow…  

Lets go back to what DeYoung said:

“Wilson also deserves credit for being unafraid to take unpopular positions. True, he often seems to enjoy stating his unpopular positions in the most unpopular ways (more on that later), but no one is going to accuse Wilson of being a spineless Evangellyfish. He offers the world and the church an angular, muscular, forthright Christianity in an age of compromise and defection.”

 AND

“Many Christians are witnessing the disintegration of our Western world, and the Christian consensus that used to hold sway, and they are thinking to themselves, ‘This is terrible. I can’t believe this is happening.’ To the Christians with these concerns—and I count myself among them—Doug Wilson says, ‘Yes, it is really bad, and let’s do something about it.’”

Wilson is, in my opinion, almost single handedly filling this vacuum. And He didn’t just begin in 2020, though he’s definitely been ramping things up since then.

 I see Wilson contributing three things into this vacuum:

Cultural Commentary.

Political Commentary.

Christendom Commentary.

I again return to what Kevin said:

“By any measure, one has to marvel at the literary, digital, and institutional output that has come out of Moscow, Idaho in the past several decades. While some internet cranks are wannabees trying to make a name for themselves by trying to tear down what others have built up, Wilson is to be commended for establishing an ecosystem of schools, churches, media offerings, and publishing ventures.”

While the world is burning down, Wilson is offering cultural commentary.

He is offering political commentary.

He is giving commentary on Christendom.

And he is doing all this commenting, while also for years having put his hand to the plow creating, “an ecosystem of schools, churches, media offerings, and publishing ventures” such that, “one has to marvel at the literary, digital, and institutional output that has come out of Moscow, Idaho in the past several decades.”

It is everything that DeYoung has recognized, that is the appeal. THAT is the visceral attraction.  This is precisely where the rubber meets the road, and DeYoung like many others simply doesn’t get it.

Christians are sick of the stuff TGC is putting out, like

That was just months ago!

Rather than trying to locate golden gospel nuggets unintentionally veiled in parabolic form, which are buried in the skubalon of the world’s blasphemous productions (the very thing TGC is known for), Wilson and crew have created their own “ecosystem.” They are re-creating a Christian culture, not exegeting Taylor Swift. They are actively, intentionally, volitionally, and successfully, carrying out the cultural mandate in a distinctively Christian way. And people are seeing that.

And they want to be a part of it.

MANY Christians are tired of this, and they are tired of men like DeYoung continuing to partner with these perpetual dumpster fires.

As Kevin has clearly pointed out - Wilson is, and has been, for decades, doing something about it, while men like Kevin keep propping up the manure inspectors.

Far too many think the best course of action as Christians is to separate from the TGC-ish ways, and then we are to simply just “preach and pray.” But the futility and error of such thinking is becoming more and more evident by the day.

Far too many have taken the “don’t you dare try to out-month the culture” posture, and far too many are still pushing such a position today.

Far too many are simply ignoring the cultural mandate. Far too many are simply watching things go down the drain, because they think their only mission is to preach and pray.

Its not without a bit of reason that some Christians have come to label and decry some popular Christian movements, “Loser Theology.”

More and more people are realizing the folly of ignoring the cultural mandate, and then they are discovering other Christians who are taking it seriously.

More and more are realizing that while many Christians have been ignoring the political world, in which Christians have the greatest opportunity to advocate for our neighbors being treated justly and righteously, the wicked have been working tirelessly, carrying out the cultural mandate, almost totally replacing western Christian culture, and gaining power over virtually every single sphere of society and lever of power, while far too many Christians have either been totally oblivious, or too indifferent to make any waves.

As more and more Christians are coming out of the ether, they are finally understanding the Cultural Mandate, as further specified through the Great Commission. They are seeing people doing it under the banner of Christ, and want to be involved. They look on and notice:

Here is a group of people that see what is happening. Here is a group of people that is willing to very clearly expose the darkness. Here is a group of people that not only exposes, in the most explicit of terms, but here is a group of people that is carrying out the cultural mandate with serious intentionality. They are actually doing something. They are active on multiple fronts, recognizing that Christ is Lord of EVERY sphere, and as such, are injecting Christ into every sphere, if not trying to re-create Christ-honoring spheres where one does not exist. And they aren’t doing this in a monastic way. The monks left, and departed for the wilderness. They went out from the world. On the contrary, this is the Mocow mood. It’s right there, in Moscow.

“We are not giving up, and we are not giving in. We can do better than negotiate the terms of our surrender. The infidels have taken over our Christian laws, our Christian heritage, and our Christian lands, and we are coming to take them back.”

Maybe an illustration will be helpful.  

Imagine a group of Christians with differing eschatologies on a plane that has been hi-jacked.

They have several options:

1.         Put your head between your knees and pray til you die.

2.         Accept your demise (as framed by the hijackers), and try to befriend your captors by expressing your obedience to them, to secure the best treatment you can from them, and enter into their service, while you discreetly share the Gospel to the those who are about to perish, as you have opportunity.

3.         Accept your demise (as framed by the hijackers), refuse to be complicit in the hijacking in any way, and stand up and loudly and explicitly preach the Gospel to the those who about about to perish.

4.         Refuse to accept that demise, and attempt to breach the cockpit and retake the controls.

5.         Refuse to accept that demise, and act as team team, some of whom will attempt to breach the cockpit and retake the controls, while others will take over the PA system to preach the Gospel, while others will single out the hi-jackers one by one, to exploit their weaknesses and attempt to rally the courage of other passengers to join in.

Which one is defines the ministry of Wilson and Moscow?

Which one defines the ministry of the DeYoungs and TGC?

Which one do you want to be a part of?

Which one have you been a part of?

When you start asking the right questions, genuinely wanting the right answers, and without getting defensive, the answers start to come. But as is often the case, the truth is not hard to understand, it’s just hard to swallow..

In the next post I’ll give some thoughts as to why I think there is such a vacuum on the current cultural and political matters. This is a BIG deal.

I’ll be using Aaron Renn’s Positive World/Negative World paradigm, which you can read about here if you haven’t already.

Here is a little hint… We’re dealing with a massive number of those birthed out of positive world, and that is precisely the problem…

On Idiocracy, and the good and necessity of Cultural Christianity for America.

The wise woman builds her house,

But the woman of folly tears it down with her own hands.

Proverbs 14:1

Have you ever wondered why God did not simply outright abolish slavery in the 1st century?

Many good, interrelated reasons have been posited. The simplest answer seems to be that demolishing the practice in the Roman Empire in the 1st century would have caused almost world-wide havoc and suffering. The labor market, as we understand it today, simply didn’t exist. The “professions” were done by slaves, not self-employed business owners. The entire western civilization was built on various forms of slavery, and society would have simply crumbled into societal meltdown. Quickly terminating that system would have resulted in catastrophic economic collapse and the resultant mass starvation and anarchy.

What does that have to do with Cultural Christianity and America?

Systems of government are not all equal.

Not only are they unequal, they cannot be simply swapped, like a garment.

What’s more, one system cannot be removed, without replacing it with another.

If a town or a city decided to power-off all its stoplights, without installing a new system for managing traffic, there would be utter chaos…

Again, what does that have to do with America?

It’s simply, really. I mean it’s really simply.

Consider the well known words of the 2nd POTUS, John Adams:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

He was a signer of the Declaration, and framer of the Constitution.

Adams knew his stuff, and when he made explicit the type of populace necessary for our Constitution to work, he wasn’t merely speculating, he’s speaking as a designer of the system!

Adams was likely not a Christian. In his latter days he was a Unitarian.

So let’s go there for a minute. He wasn’t saying that everyone needs to be a born again Christian, that’s for sure!

Let’s even grant, for the sake of argument, the worst case as it pertains to the Framers. Let’s say that the majority were deists, with few real Christians. What does that mean?

It means that the understanding of the framers was that it’s not born again Christianity that is necessary for the American system to work, but Cultural Christianity. Christian morals. Christian ethics. Acknowledgement of the truth claims of Christianity.

The American system was designed only to work upon the foundation of Cultural Christianity.

Apart from that, it is wholly inadequate.

Our constitution, according to the designer, will not work apart from Cultural Christianity. It is wholly inadequate for such a task.

You might have noticed, he’s right!

So, rail against Cultural Christianity. Decry it. Condemn it. Bemoan it.

But be ready to establish an entirely new governmental system, as you participate in the collapse of the one you sabotage and tear down.

The wise woman builds her house,

But the woman of folly tears it down with her own hands.

Proverbs 14:1

You ARE the traffic

On Christians, Culture, and The Cultural Mandate

As this blog is called, How Should We Then Think, here is a very short illustration to help you think about your relationship to culture.

When you sit in traffic, creeping along at 5 mph on the freeway, it’s not that you are stuck in the traffic.. It’s not that everyone else is the traffic and you’re just stuck in it.

No, the real truth is that you are the traffic.

The speed that you drive; the gap you leave between you and the car in front of you; whether you respond and accelerate quickly and keep up with the car in front of you, or whether you lag behind slowly creating an initial large gap and then keep accelerating to then close that gap down from massive to minute; whether you often change lanes or just stay in your lane; whether you clog up the fast lane or use it properly; whether you clog up the exit/entrance lane(s) or know to get over for people merging; whether you are always the one letting everyone in because of the massive gap in front of you, or whether you never let anyone in because you intentionally don’t or because you are always very close to the car in front of you; whether you merge a mile back, or whether you try to wait to the last second and squeeze in, in front of one of those drivers who leaves the annoying and unnecessarily large gaps between themselves and the car in front of them - all of what you do contributes to the traffic, either in a helpful way, or in a harmful way.

”One person can prevent a traffic jam.” The inverse is true too - one person can cause a traffic jam.

You are the traffic, and you are always being both influenced by, and likewise influencing, the traffic.

When you begin to realize this, you begin to try to be a better driver. But you will never try to help improve traffic as long as you think that “they” are the traffic, and you are just stuck “in” it.

How old were you when you began to realize how wrong it is to walk through Costco, or the grocery store, and then just stop in the middle of the isle, and stand and stare, while people pile up behind you? Or to just leave your cart in the middle of the isle, blocking everyone else?

It doesn’t take many shopping trips before you quickly notice that many have never realized this, even in their latter years…

Anyone who has been driving for long knows the frustration of being stuck in the left lane, in a long line of cars, traveling below the speed limit, because some car a mile ahead is in the left lane, clogging up traffic as far as the eye can see. That one car is driven by someone either totally clueless, or totally inconsiderate, and often a combination of the two.

And so it is with “the culture.” You are the traffic. And you are the culture. You are either helping, or hindering, but never outside of it. Whether you realize it or not, you are influenced by the culture around you, you are formed by the culture around you.

Many seem to think that “the culture” and “the world” are synonymous phrases.

But while “the world” is a concept that is universe-encompassing, and something the Christian is outside of, “the culture” is neither universe-encompassing, and more importantly, NOT something the Christian is outside of. Rather, the Christian is part of the culture, just like the traffic.

Are are the light of the world.

You are the salt of the earth.

And just as there are bad drivers, dangerous drivers, and lots of careless, clueless, and lackadaisical drivers, there are far too many careless, far too many clueless, and too many dangerous Christians, when it comes to culture.

Today there is a new profession - Influencers.

As Dr. Sproul has said, “Everyone is a Theologian.” It’s true, everyone is a theologian. You are either a good theologian, or a bad theologian.

And the same is true of when it comes to influencing culture. You are an influencer. You are either a good influencer, or you are a bad influencer.

Just like being in the shopping isle, or the left lane, the degree to which you are good or bad, helpful or harmful, depends a great deal upon the degree to which you are self-aware.

Self awareness, and situational awareness are (normally) normal components of maturity…

When you begin to realize that you are part of culture, the way you talk about and approach culture changes. But you never begin to be a blessing as long as you think that “they” are the traffic, and you’re just stuck “in” it.

How one talks about culture is often just as important as what one says about culture.

So, how are you thinking about culture?

Pride Month and The Cultural Mandate, Part 3

In the next post I’ll get to Kevin DeYoung and Doug Wilson, and what I think most are missing.

Here is where we are going in this post:

Genesis 4 records the history of Cain the Murderer’s familial and spiritual tree, and their technological development of God’s creation, which we refer to as “culture.” Genesis 4 is the account of the cultural mandate being carried out by the seed of the Satan. Fallen mankind, redeemed or not, carries out the cultural mandate, by divine design. The question is, to whose glory is culture seeking and serving?

In parts 1 and 2 we began considering Christians, Culture, and the Cultural Mandate (as well as Pride Month).

The Cultural Mandate is found in Genesis 1:28

“God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that creeps on the earth.’”

Man is to “fill” the earth. By the time God “decides” to flood the earth, the earth is “filled,” but not in the way God intended:

“Now the earth was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence,” (Gen 6:11). This is the first time since 1:28 that “fill” has been used.

God created a template in the Garden of Eden, that Adam and Eve were to use to expand the garden, while utilizing the resources that God deposited in His creation, as depicted in Genesis 2. They were to fill the earth with culture. God-glorifying culture.

Man, by nature, creates culture. We are engaged in an ongoing process by which we are first shaped by culture, by our families and in our homes, and then in our churches, and schools, and communities, and then we likewise begin to influence and create culture in those same spheres, and more. As one has said, we are culture makers.

Ashford and Bartholomew put it this way:

“Building on Cicero, Westerners began to employ the word [culture] to refer to artistic, architectural, literary, and intellectual accomplishments of society. Today, among anthropologists, culture is used even more expansively, with one influential definition being the ‘more or less integrated systems of feelings, ideas, and values and their associated patterns of behavior and products shared by a group of people who organize and regulate what they feel, think, and do.’ In line with the more expansive meaning, we define culture theologically as whatever results from God's image bearers interacting with God's good creation. As God's image bearers interact with God's creation, they cultivate the ground, harvesting goods from the natural world such as vegetables or wood; they produce artifacts from creation's raw materials, such as cloth, homes, airplanes; they ponder the relationships of cause and effect and the origins of things, forming worldviews (theism, pantheism, atheism); and they foster ways of life, which include not only belief systems but affective and evaluative grids.

Thus, by culture we have in mind the ways in which humans shape their lives together. Culture includes such things as housing; the development of towns, cities, and farms; transport; wilderness areas protected through conservation; education; government; art, music, and crafts; and leisure. This notion of culture conforms with biblical teaching that the image of God is the whole person, not seated in one's intellect or will, but encompassing the cognitive, affective, and evaluative aspects of one's being and including patterns of behavior and products produced. The human person, the imager and culture maker, draws on all of who he or she is to shape culture and, in turn, is shaped by the same thing he or she helped produce. Further, in this shaping and being shaped, one interacts extensively across the entire range of nonhuman creation. The concept of culture, therefore, is intimately related to the doctrine of creation.”

All humans are are engaged in carrying out the cultural mandate. It’s programmed into us. We simply do it.

In the last post we traced the development of human culture though Genesis 4. Cain’s line develops zoology, horticulture and agriculture, urbanization, ranching, harmonics and musical instruments, and even metallurgy. This all culminates with Lamech’s poetry, glorifying his murdering of someone, quite possibly with one of his son’s metal instruments, quite possibly to the tune of the musical instruments developed by his other son.

Mankind is indeed filling the earth with culture.

Seth’s line is not recorded as making any cultural advancements. This doesn’t mean they made none. Nor does this mean they lived like the Amish, eschewing technology. Noah is from Seth’s line, and is recorded building the Ark, and planting a vineyard.

Eventuality the redeemed (Israel) will use all these developments, the metallurgy, the musical instruments, etc., in the worship of God, as commanded by God, and recorded by Moses.

The matter of importance is not so much about who develops or invents a particular cultural expression or form of technology. The matter of importance is the how and why of its usage. What is culture and technology used for - that’s the issue.  Does it acknowledge and glorify God, or does it deny and blaspheme Him?

This brings us to a point that I have not yet clearly articulated.

Before all this cultural development in Genesis 4, the chapter begins with a murder. Cain kills his brother Able. In chapter 3, God informed Adam, Eve, and Satan, that she would have a seed, or lineage, and Satan would likewise have a lineage, and that the 2 lines would be at enmity with one another:

“And I will put enmity

Between you (Satan) and the woman (Eve),

And between your seed and her seed;

He shall bruise you on the head,

And you shall bruise him on the heel.”

— Genesis 3:15

Later revelation tell us, “Cain . . .  was of the evil one and slew his brother.”

— 1 John 3:12

Jesus would teach something similar to the oppositional religious leaders of His day:

“You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him.”

— John 8:44

Through the process of progressive revelation, what was implicit in Genesis 3 becomes much more explicit:

There are two families of humanity, carrying out the cultural mandate, side by side.  There is the line of Cain, which is ultimately the line of Satan, and there is the line of the woman, who represents those reclaimed by God. Each family is actively carrying out the cultural mandate, to the glory of their spiritual father. 

The unregenerate create a culture of darkness and death.

The redeemed create a culture of light and life. 

Genesis 4 records the history of Cain the Murderer’s family tree, and their development of God’s creation, advancing technology in various ways, which we refer to as culture. Genesis 4 is the account of the cultural mandate being carried out by the seed of the Satan. Fallen mankind, redeemed or not, carries out the cultural mandate, by divine design.

Paul provides additional clarity on this topic in Ephesians 2, as he speaks to the believers about their previous lives as unbelievers:

“And you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience, among whom we all also formerly conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.”

Unbelievers live their lives, “according to the course of this world.”

RC Sproul says on this verse:

“This is the way in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. Augustine once said that man is like a horse, and he has one of two riders. Either the horse is ridden by Satan, or it is ridden by God. But the horse doesn’t run on its own steam. Sadly, nothing is more natural to fallen man than to adopt, to embrace, and to walk according to the ways of this world in direct contrast to the way of God. The spirit who is influencing non—Christians to be disobedient is obviously a reference to Satan.”

Lloy-Jones said:

“They think as the world thinks. They take their opinions ready-made from their favourite newspaper. Their very appearance is controlled by the world and its changing fashions. They all conform; it must be done; they dare not disobey; they are afraid of the consequences.”

Paul not only said that unbelievers walk according to this world, but “according to the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience…”

This pictures men walking under the influence of Satan. This is what we already know to be true, because they are of the seed of Satan; they are of their father, the Devil.

Harold Hoehner comments, “the unregenerate not only walk according to the values of the present age but also under the control of the leader who rules over this evil world.”

Calvin comments, “’According to the prince of the power of the air.’ [Paul] now proceeds farther, and explains the cause of our corruption to be the dominion which the devil exercises over us. A more severe condemnation of mankind could not have been pronounced. What does he leave to us, when he declares us to be the slaves of Satan, and subject to his will, so long as we live out of the kingdom of Christ? . . .there is no obscurity in the apostle’s language; and that all men who live according to the world, that is, according to the inclinations of their flesh, are here declared to fight under the reign of Satan.”

The conclusions are inescapable. There are two lines of humanity and both are, by nature, carrying out cultural mandate. There are two lines of humanity carrying out the cultural mandate, and they are both doing so to the glory of, and under the influence of, their spiritual father. Unbelievers build an ungodly and demonic culture, to the glory of Satan. Christians, when they behave consistently, or as Paul puts it, when they “walk worthy of the calling with which [they] have been called,” create a God-glorifying culture.

This is simply the outworking of what man has been designed by God to do, whether they are redeemed or not.

The implications of this reality are massive.

Countries have a culture they are known for, stereotypes or not.

Regions have a culture they are known for.

Cities, small communities (ever been to Korea-town?), churches and families all have a culture.

It is not uncommon in our day to hear of an investigation into an organization that reveals a “culture of intimidation and abuse,” or something along those lines. Every institution and grouping of people has a culture.

Those cultures are in constant flux, they are never static, even if the changes are small and incremental.

The local church is the only place we might expect to see a distinctly Christian culture. All other spheres will have a mixture of believers and unbelievers working alongside one another, both creating culture, to the glory of the spiritual fathers.

Unbelievers will, at times, steal Christian pre-suppositions, from which to build culture. They aren’t doing it to the glory of Christ, and thus all their righteous deeds are nevertheless filthy rags. Even still, by God’s common restraining grace and the remaining vestiges of the imago Dei, culture, like the unbelievers creating it, is never quite as bad as it could be. Some will appeal to natural law to account for how unbelieving man can build a culture that is somewhat in alignment with the revealed will of God, and I think Paul makes that point in Romans 2:14-15. Nevertheless, the fact remains that there are two distinct family groups, each doing the will of their respective fathers.

Without getting too far off topic, I think this plays a factor in some of the attraction to the Eastern Orthodox church, or the Roman church, and even the Emergent church. Because we are designed to be culture creators, we are aware of differing cultures, even if on a “subconscious” level. There are people who make an intellectual assent to the broad claims of Christianity. At that point, with the adoption of a new worldview, they begin to seek for a new culture that better corresponds to what they have given assent to. Too often, the church they participate in looks almost imperceptible from the world, whether it’s the worldly people, or the worldly music, or the worldly ways. The fact is, unbelievers are often quite adept at detecting hypocrisy. Thus they see a worldly looking church, and they go looking for a church culture that is obviously different from the world.

Real Christians notice distinctively Christian culture too. We notice when men are “doing great things for the Lord.” Because of our design, we are drawn to, and give approval to those who under the banner of Christ, are building things in the name of Christ, whether it be churches, or schools, or businesses, or any other facet or sphere of life. Real Christians have a desire to build a Christian culture, and they will be drawn towards those that they perceive are leading the way.

This draws us closer towards addressing Kevin DeYoung and the methodology of The Gospel Coalition that he has helped prop up, and Douglas Wilson, and the “Moscow Mood” as Kevin puts it. But thats for next time.

Before going there, let’s consider the tweet that stated this whole series - a rebuke of Christians who were trying to “out-month the culture,” as our nation celebrated “Pride Month.” Read over the arguments again, and consider to what degree they actually align with the teachings of Scripture:

As I said before, it is not, “us v. the culture,” as posited in the tweet being critiqued. That is a totally faulty concept, as if Christians have escaped the culture, or don’t influence the culture.

Nor is it a matter of “the culture will out-month the church every time.” That is to conflate the role of the church with that of individual Christians who have been given the cultural mandate.

The issue is, which culture(s) will have the preeminence? Which culture(s) will have the predominant influence, dominance, and power? Which cultures will be recognized and exalted? Will Christians build a distinctively Christian culture, in the civil sphere, in the educational sphere, in the sphere of the marketplace, etc.? America was built on a distinctly Protestant culture…

A “demonic and sin-sick culture” ran rampant before the flood. And God drowned it. God drowned them.

But God also gave commands in Genesis 9; to curb such a culture.

But thats not all..

God made us the “light of the world,” and He commanded us, “Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.”

Light exposes, and we’re told to expose the evils of the world, and to be a shining example,

“And do not participate in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead even expose them. For it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret. But all things become visible when they are exposed by the light, for everything that becomes visible is light.”

Ephesians 5:11-13

Jesus reminded us, “A city set on a hill cannot be hidden; nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house.”

He also made us to be the salt of the earth, to flavor the world, and to retard the decaying process. But He also warned us,

“if the salt has become tasteless, how will it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out to be trampled under foot by men.”

Matthew 5:13

How salty have Christians been in our society over the past 100 years?

Furthermore, and most importantly, He made us Ambassadors of Christ, with the result that others can join us in creating a God-glorifying culture, everywhere around us.

No Christian in outside of culture. No Christian is free from cultural influences, or from themselves being a cultural influence. Those simply aren’t options.

There are, as always, 2 options. Obedience or disobedience.

Abandonment is not an option.

Invisibility and immutability are not options for us creatures.

You and I are filling the earth.

Food Poisoning, Medical Malpractice, and Local Churches

Calling out other churches?

If you ate at a restaurant several times, and got food poisoning every time, would you never warn anyone about the ongoing poisoning?

Wouldn’t you at least go online and post bad reviews wherever you could, to try and warn people? Wouldn’t you see if there is a way to have their license revoked?

If there was a physician in your community who consistently messed up the people that he treated, and he messed you up, and/or a couple of your friends and family members, wouldn’t you at least leave some negative reviews online?

Wouldn’t you see if there’s anything you can do to have his license revoked? Would you never warn anybody about his ongoing malpractice?

Pastor, when is the last time you went on record, exposing the other churches in your community that need to be exposed?

Christian, when is the last time that you spoke directly to those in your circle of influence, and warned them about the harmful churches in your community? Particularly about the harmful churches that your friends and family and acquaintances attend?

Maybe you think it’s “nice” or “Christian” or “humble” to say nothing?

Consider this from another angle - Christian Nationalism, and our God-hating culture.

In the discussions about Christian nationalism, it has been noted how pervasive nominal Christianity is in our country (albeit on steep decline). And nominal Christianity has been put forth as an argument against Christian nationalism. The unstated implication in the argument is that legislating a biblical Christian morality produces a nominal Christian culture. But nominal Christianity is not a result of legislation in the political realm, it’s a spiritual problem for which individual Christians and churches are responsible.

Many Christians would recognize that much of contemporary society’s ills can be traced back to failure in the churches. It is true that the past couple generations in America have been inundated with easy-believism, and political-pietism. I mean, we literally talk about the south being the “Bible Belt,” and by that we mean a Christian culture that is devoid by and large, of real Christians.

Have you noticed that all the main places of influence in society are almost completely devoid of real Christians? What do you think will be the societal effect?

Where are the Christians in the local school board? Where are the Christians in the universities? Where are the Christians in the political arena?

If you remove the salt from the corpse, it will not be preserved, nor will the decay be slowed.

If the city on a hill ceases to be lit up, and no longer acts like a lighthouse, then shipwreck is an inevitable.

So back to my first sentence… if individual Christians and pastors really do believe that much of our problem comes from the failure of pastors and churches to do their job (and they’re absolutely right), then why do so few Christians and pastors speak out against counterfeit churches, and those that teach unsound, false, and deadly doctrines?

How in the world can anyone expect things to turn around when pastors and Christians simply refuse to expose the error and darkness in their communities that they’re supposed to expose?

It’s one thing to point out the ills of abortion and the various gay agendas. It’s even good to do that. But if your real and primary concern is for the souls of people, and the sanctification of Christians, which results in the exaltation of the name of Christ, then one of your primary concerns should be the exposing of the wolves, and compromisers, and charlatans in your community.

You’d never convince me that you loved your neighbors if you knew a restaurant consistently gave people food poisoning, and yet you never said or did anything, or if you knew a physician consistently messed people up, and again never actually said or did anything about it...

So how should silence about those who consistently poison people spiritually be interpreted?

How should silence about the soul physicians who consistently engage in gross malpractice be interpreted?

This is a difficult issue for sure. Error comes on a spectrum.

There is damning error, ie straight heresy. And then there is the intermural error, such as one camp’s view of another camp’s view on baptism.

Then there are errors of ministry methodology, which sometimes are outright heresy, but others times more subtly distort and mis-represent the gospel, like the seeker sensitive trash.

Churches have rightly spent a lot of time figuring out how to work with other churches who get the Gospel right, but differ in other areas. Thus a triage approach. And there are different “levels“ of “working together.“ And putting this all together is difficult and taxing.

It is likewise difficult to put into black-and-white terms, when, and how other churches and pastors should be publicly marked as, dangerous at best.

I think many are now in agreement that there are churches and ministries that may not fit into the outright “heretical” category, nevertheless, explicitly warning others about them would be the loving thing to do.  But getting into the specifics is where the difficulties arise.

Just taking into account the number of churches in one’s area is a factor for consideration. For example, I pastor a Grace Advance church. Generally speaking, a Grace Advance church exists in an area where there is no other healthy alternative. If a healthy alternative existed, then Grace Advance would never have been involved.

So if there are only a handful of churches in a given area, and there is a need for a Grace Advance church in that area, and one exists, then what might be prudent in that circumstance might be different than what is prudent in a major city with hundreds of churches.

Thus it is obviously much easier to diagnose the problem than it is to provide a silver bullet solution. But the first step I think, is coming to a place where there is an acknowledgment that something “ought” to be done.

Here is a great example of another faithful Grace Advance church, in Vancouver WA doing this very thing:

You can catch my entire 40-part sermon series on God and Government on the following playlist:

Pride Month and The Cultural Mandate, Part 2

In the previous post, (ie don’t read part 2 until you’ve read part 1),

I introduced 5 things:

1. A tweet rebuking Christians for trying to “out-month” the culture.

2. A working definition of culture

3. An Introduction to the biblical cultural mandate

4. D. A. Caron’s observation about the spectrum of responses that Christians have to culture

5. Bavinck’s assertion about the effects of the Gospel on society, through Christians.

For the sake of ease, here again is the tweet being critiqued:

Lets now take a moment and consider the opening sentence of the tweet:

As Christians, our responsibility is not to try to “out-month’ the culture.

I would agree that we have responsibilities, as Christians. And he has done well to use careful language by speaking of our duties as “Christians” and not as the Church, as these are often conflated. Remember, Churches are called to do things that you and I as individual Christians are not called to do, and you and I are called to do things that the Church as a body is not called to do.

The ultimate reality, however, is that it is our duty to be engaged in producing, directing, and reforming culture. That is literally what we “do,” like it or not. There is no way to avoid it. We are, by definition, both shaped by, and shaping culture. And we already belong to several cultures.

Let’s return to Scripture for a moment.

As mentioned in the last post, God’s instruction for all mankind is to full the earth. Thats exactly what man does. By Genesis 6, we are told, “the earth was filled with violence.” So God floods the earth and starts over. Then in Genesis 9, God re-states the cultural mandate to Noah and his sons,

“And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.”

Once again, man is to fill the earth with culture. But what does that look like?

Genesis 4 answers that question. There, we see the initial development of human culture, albeit under Cain’s line.

“Now the man knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said,

‘I have gotten a man with the help of Yahweh.’ And again, she gave birth to his brother Abel. Abel was a keeper of flocks, but Cain was a cultivator of the ground,” (Genesis 4:2).

Here we start to see specializations of interest and employment. Every parent has observed how each of their children has their own God-given interests, skill and inclinations.

Here Abel focuses on zoology, and Cain focuses on horticulture or agriculture.

Then, “Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and gave birth to Enoch; and he built a city and called the name of the city Enoch, after the name of his son” (Genesis 4:17).

There is some disagreement as to which man the pronouns are pointing back to, but nevertheless Enoch and Cain are involved in city building.

We have the men engaging in the observational sciences, discovering what God has made, and discovering the laws that govern what God has made, and then learning how to manipulate and use what God has made (we call this technology).

This is the move towards urbanization. The would include planning and design, the utilization and allocation of resources, etc. This again is human culture.

Within a few more generations we read,

“And Lamech took for himself two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other, Zillah.

And Adah gave birth to Jabal; he was the father of those who live in tents and have livestock. 

And his brother’s name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe.”

• Genesis 4:19-21.

Here culture has really taken off. Jabal’s vocation has become increasingly specialized, like a rancher. Living in tents will come with its own processes of making tents, maintaining tents, the cooking, the sanitary issues, etc. Livestock will need to be cared for and fed. Anyone that has done any farming or ranching has some insight into how advanced man has to be at this time to employ such specialization in a meaningful way.

Jubal appears to be very different. He specializes in discovering and applying harmonics, inventing the lyre, a stringed instrument, and the utilization of the wind and harmonics for the wind-instruments. Simply, Jubal is filling the earth with music.

Then we read, “As for Zillah, she also gave birth to Tubal-cain, the forger of all implements of bronze and iron; and the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah” (Genesis 4:22).

Tubal-cain goes a different route than his two half-brothers. Jabal is a rancher, Jubal is a musician, and Tubal-cain is a blacksmith. He specializes in metallurgy. He takes the natural resources in the earth, studies them, and them manipulates them and forges them into tools. The word translated as “forger” has the idea of a “sharpener.” He is likely making weapons…

After telling us about what Lamech’s children has accomplished, Moses goes back to talking about Lamech:

“And Lamech said to his wives,

‘Adah and Zillah,

Hear my voice,

You wives of Lamech,

Give ear to my word,

For I have killed a man for striking me;

And a boy for wounding me;

If Cain is avenged sevenfold,

Then Lamech seventy‑sevenfold.’”

Note how Lamech’s words are put into poetic structure. That is because it is poetry. It has meter. Many Old Testament commentators speculate that we are told about Lamech’s poem, after being told about his sons’ vocations, because it appears that from the poem Lamech writes, he is using the cultural tools that his sons invent.

Lamech is a murderer. He writes a poem about it, and then sings it for his wives.

Was it accompanied by one of his son’s musical instruments?

Did he use one of his son’s implements of bronze or iron as a murder weapon?

Quite possibly…

What Moses narrates for us is how mankind naturally carries out the cultural mandate. We are programmed to do this very thing. Children begin building (and destroying) before they can even walk.

Mankind is always, everywhere, creating culture. Mankind is not only creating culture, he is being confirmed by his culture, and then informing that culture, which then continues to conform him. Each individual joins together in forming, and being formed by culture.

So, what is the responsibility of Christians, as it relates to culture? It is surely not to assume that culture exists outside of us. Nor is it our responsibility to pretend that we are not formed by it, or that we do not help share and form it. It is not to walk away, and watch the God-haters have absolute free reign on our Fathers’s creation. No, we are commanded, just like them, to “fill the earth.” We can expect them to fill the earth with violences, and lo and behold.

But what does God expect us to fill the earth with?

We’ll return to the question in the next post, which you can read HERE

You can catch my entire 40-part sermon series on God and Government on the following playlist:

Biblical Foundation of Christian Nationalism, Part 1

Is there a biblical case for Christian Nationalism, or is it just a philosophy in Christian garb?

Biblical Foundation of Christian Nationalism, Part 1

You can catch my entire 40-part sermon series on God and Government on the following playlist:

Pride Month and The Cultural Mandate, Part 1

There is much talk this month about culture. There are agendas, evaluations, plots, critiques, and more.

One particular comment from a famous Christian whom I really respect caught my eye. In this post I am going to redact his name, because I want the argument to be focused on what he said, not who he is.

Lets start with his tweet:

I’ll come back to the tweet for further critique in a bit, but for now let me summarize the main thrust:

Christians should be not be engaged in a culture war, attempting to win back the culture.

I think that is a fair representation of what this brother is saying.

Before we engage that any further, we should consider a few things, such as a definition of culture, and a quick survey of views on the Christian’s ralationship to culture.

In Ashford and Bartholomew’s brilliant book, we read:

“Building on Cicero, Westerners began to employ the word to refer to artistic, architectural, literary, and intellectual accomplishments of society. Today, among anthropologists, culture is used even more expansively, with one influential definition being the ‘more or less integrated systems of feelings, ideas, and values and their associated patterns of behavior and products shared by a group of people who organize and regulate what they feel, think, and do.’

“In line with the more expansive meaning, we define culture theologically as whatever results from God's image bearers interacting with God's good creation. As God's image bearers interact with God's creation, they cultivate the ground, harvesting goods from the natural world such as vegetables or wood; they produce artifacts from creation's raw materials, such as cloth, homes, airplanes; they ponder the relationships of cause and effect and the origins of things, forming worldviews (theism, pantheism, atheism); and they foster ways of life, which include not only belief systems but affective and evaluative grids. Thus, by culture we have in mind the ways in which humans shape their lives together. Culture includes such things as housing; the development of towns, cities, and farms; transport; wilderness areas protected through conservation; education; government; art, music, and crafts; and leisure. This notion of culture conforms with biblical teaching that the image of God is the whole person, not seated in one's intellect or will, but encompassing the cognitive, affective, and evaluative aspects of one's being and including patterns of behavior and products produced. The human person, the imager and culture maker, draws on all of who he or she is to shape culture and, in turn, is shaped by the same thing he or she helped produce. Further, in this shaping and being shaped, one interacts extensively across the entire range of nonhuman creation. The concept of culture, therefore, is intimately related to the doctrine of creation.”

This is a really helpful understanding of “culture.” What becomes clear that every human in involved in culture, not just the unbeliever. Therefore, it is not, “us v. the culture,” as posited in the tweet being critiqued. The issue is, which culture(s) will have influence, dominance, and power.

This idea that all humanity is involved in creating "culture” is thoroughly biblical. In Genesis, God issues what is often referred to as the "cultural mandate:”

And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that creeps on the earth.” - Genesis 1:27-28

Several points need to be drawn out here. First, Adam and Eve are instructed using kingly language: “subdue” and “dominion.” You can do the word studies on your own time.

Second, when God says “fill” the earth, He is not just talking about people. He is talking about culture. Adam and Eve are to, for sure, replicate. But its not just a replication of themselves. They are to replicate and expand the Garden. They are to fill the earth according to the template that God has given them.

He has given them rivers filled with precious mineral and jewels, from which to build canals and irrigation off of:

Now a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided and became four rivers. - Genesis 2:10

and God demonstrated which trees were objectively beautiful, and which ones were good for food :

And out of the ground Yahweh God caused to grow every tree that is desirable in appearance and good for food,” Genesis 2:9

Adam and Even now have the divine template to work off of.

The next time the Bible uses the word translated as “fill” in 1:28, is in Genesis 6:11. At this point mankind has indeed filled the earth:

Now the earth was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. Genesis 6:11

This post has gotten long enough, so I’ll wrap it up here with a quote from D. A. Carson, on common Christian responses to culture. See if you can place the tweet quoted, and the Bavinck quote at the top of the post, within this spectrum.

In the next post I will fill in more biblical details regarding the cultural mandate, and return to examine the quoted tweet in a bit more detail.

“The urgency of thinking afresh about Christ and culture is becoming more acute. Inevitably, Christians respond in various ways. Some advocate one form or another of withdrawal. Others want to gain more access to the media. Still others put forth valiant efforts to influence government and pass appropriate legislation. Some, whether consciously or unconsciously, develop a two-tier mentality, one for Christians and church functions, and one for the broader cultural encounters that take up most of the rest of the week. Still others think little about these matters but simply want to get on with evangelism and church planting.”

— Carson, Christ & Culture Revisited

Part two has now been published, you can read it here.

You can catch my entire 40-part sermon series on God and Government on the following playlist:

The Bud Zone Podcast, Part 2

Bud has posted part (2) of his podcast episode with Fred Butler and I, where we discuss Romans 13, Christian Nationalism, and Theonomy: Listen Here

Part 1 can be found Here

On the origins of human government and sphere sovereignty.

An Interview: On the origins of human government and sphere sovereignty.

Part 1 of an interview I did recently on the origins of authority and government. This is a helpful introduction if you are not familiar with the beginnings of human government and sphere sovereignty.

Christian Nationalism and the age of the earth: A few errors to avoid.

Christian Nationalism and the age of the earth: A few errors to avoid.

That there is much disagreement about the age of the earth is of no dispute. The debate is primality between Christians and non-Christians. It is ultimately a matter of starting points. Where does one get his or her data from? What are the nonnegotiables that the remaining data must be interpreted in light of?

When I taught through the early chapters of Genesis recently, I made a point that if you were put into a time machine, and brought to the third day of creation, and asked to date the age of the earth, you would never get the right answer.

“Then God said, ‘Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them’; and it was so.

And the earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.

And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.”

— Genesis 1:11-13

On the evening of the third day you could pick a fruit with seeds in it, from a fruit tree, that was created just a few hours earlier.

The same can be said of day six. If you were transported to the sixth day, and asked to guess Adam’s age, you would never, ever get the right answer. You would never guess that he was only hours old.

What’s the point?

In the debates surrounding Christian Nationalism, you will often hear comments like, “That would only work in the Millennium,” or, “That will only work after Christ returns,” or “That would only work in the post-mil system.”

All of those comments are ultimately pragmatic statements, built partly upon what “works,” (and all depending upon how one defines “works”). They are statements of objection. They are saying that the interpretation of the Bible just presented is wrong.

But that’s not how theology and Bible interpretation are argued. Arguing points of theology on pragmatic grounds is a horrible idea.

Not only that, note that they are also arguments tied to eschatology. The underlying but unstated assumption being expressed is that eschatology determines what obedience looks like today. That’s simply not true. Obedience today is not tied to what God has promised to do at some time in the future…

Those are the first and second errors to avoid. We do not argue about what God commands today by speculating on whether or not it will “work.” Said another way, obedience is never measured by what “works,” and especially without defining what one means by “works.” Nor do we define obedience today by our eschatology.

But there is another error to be avoided. That error is the error of the wrong starting point.

In my illustration about the age of the earth, the people who erroneously posit that the earth is millions or billions of years old, instead of the right answer which is closer to 6,000 years, do so because they don’t start with God’s Word. They start somewhere else.

In the Christian Nationalism discussions, opposition to Christian Nationalism is often stated by injecting the current state of political affairs. Rather than first asking, is this what the Bible teaches, opponents will ask, so what would this look like in our society? Or they ask other questions (which are really just objections) such as: What does this do the First Amendment? How about the US Constitution?

And those are all great questions, no doubt. But those questions and objections are absolutely the wrong starting points, and they are the wrong tools for critiquing supposed biblical doctrines. These again are pragmatic questions, not doctrinal/theological questions. They are not the questions that one uses to test whether or not a particular interpretation of the Bible is accurate. These are application type questions.

Again, these are not bad questions, they are simply misplaced, and improperly used.

Think about the person who believes that the earth is a billion years old. They’ve come to certain conclusions, not because of what Scripture teaches. If you try to convince them that the earth is 6000 years old, they will reject your conclusion because it does not fit with their existing system. They will ask, how can that be when we’ve already established from X that the earth is YY years old.

Something similar happens with the discussions on Christian Nationalism.

Note Carefully: Those that oppose Christian Nationalism are very much unlike the one who thinks the earth is millions or billions of years old.

The folks who oppose Christian Nationalism, by and large, are a people who take the Bible seriously, and in most cases are people I’d go out and proclaim the Gospel with on the street corner. So these are brothers who exalt the Word of God, no doubt.

But what they’re doing, by appealing to the 1A, or the Constitution, to critique arguments for Christian Nationalism, is inadvertently acting/arguing like the person who believes the earth is a billion years old - they are using the wrong standard of evaluation. This is similar to the pragmatic “how would this work” objection.

The issue is not, How does it fit in our political system? What would this do to the 1A? What changes would have to be made to our system to implement this?

None of those questions/objections will aid in determining if the things being asserted under the name of Christian Nationalism are biblical.

The question is not, how does it fit in our current system, the question is - is this an accurate reflection of the teaching of Scripture? Why or why not?

The temptation to jump to application must be avoided if progress is to be made.

The ease or inability of application is not a valid criteria for determining whether or not the proposals are actually biblical.

If the question to be answered is, is this an accurate reflection of the totality of the biblical revelation, then one must have an understanding of the totality of biblical revelation, and all the individual parts that inform this particular area of dispute.

So, a few applications.

1. If you see someone making these comments/arguments/objections, know that you’re hearing from someone presently in error. I am not saying to totally disregard these brothers, but when/if they start arguing this way, they should lose credibility on the issue in your eyes.

2. Truth be told, this might require recognizing that you are the one in error.

3. If you feel that you are presently not well versed enough in the totality of God’s revelation to really analyze the arguments being made, then focus on bringing yourself up to speed. Find people that are teaching at this level of depth. Bring yourself to the place where you are able to analyze the arguments, biblically. Bring yourself to the place where you can recognize the bad and faulty arguments.

4. Get to where you can love and respect faithful brothers who do and teach great things, while also being able to recognize that sometimes they get into matters in which they show themselves to be totally unprepared to handle. And when you see that a brother or ministry has gone out of their area of expertise, and are using all kinds of faulty and erroneous arguments, be very careful. Ensure that you are not going to be misled by their error, before taking in their arguments.

ABOUT THIS BLOG

Welcome to my personal blog. Note that adjective - personal. I say that, because while I am the primary teaching elder of Cannon Beach Bible Church, the views expressed here are my own, not necessarily those of the church as a church, nor those of the members of the church. 

In the context of my role as a local church elder/pastor, I do my best to teach through the texts in the Bible, in a verse by verse fashion, drawing out the meaning of the text in its historical context. Then I try to demonstrate how that text fits into the larger framework of that book, or that authors corpus, ie biblical theology. Then I attempt to tie it all together to demonstrate a systematic theology, all of which is in accordance with our church’s doctrinal statement (that I 100% affirm). 

This blog, however, reveals some personal views about application, and wisdom in our age, that I am less comfortable affixing to, “thus saith the Lord.” In this blog I reflect on what I think wisdom looks like for today. Even such a statement is dangerous, because as soon as one course of action is labeled “wisdom” there can be the implication that other courses are not wise (and Scripture speaks strongly against those who reject wisdom). So it is necessary to note that there can often be more than one “wise” way of doing things, at a given point of time. And that is the joy and difficulty of Christian liberty! 

This blog is primarily for personal use. If it helps you, great! But I am writing for my own benefit primarily, and the accountability of making my thinking public thus helps me to ensure that I am thinking clearly and biblically. 

You might have caught my head-nod to Francis Schaeffer with the blog’s title.