Jesus Jukes And Gutter Arguments: The Anti-XNats Need to Make a Point.

If Christian Nationalism is so dangerous, why are the Anti-XNats Not Sending Their Best?

Reformed Baptists, God bless them, are always late to the party. A good ten years after hostilities cease on any given issue, like that family who’s always late to potluck with a room-temperature egg salad in tow, the second-cousins of the Reformers will eventually publish a book on whatever the hottest topic in evangelicalism used to be.

If being fashionably irrelevant were an olympic sport, Reformed Baptists would be gold medalists. I can say that, because I am one.

I thought this several months ago when I saw that Tom Hicks was advertising a book challenging Theonomy like it was 2014, apparently unaware that Theonomy 1.0 already died a whimpering death. It’s like when the Catholics put Wycliffe posthumously on trial in 1415, and thirteen years later dug up his corpse and burned it. I suppose this is because during the Great Theonomy Wars of the 20-teens, the Reformed Baptists were busy schisming about whether or not God smiles during their civil war over Impassibility. It was basically like the Tajikistani Civil War of 1992; it happened, but it was boring and no one cared.

But as of late, the anti-XNat (Christian Nationalism) debate has created a coalition so broad it might convince you everyone in the evangelical world is against it, except for a few well-bearded contrarians who, if you listen to Doug Wilson, don’t have fathers. I would suspect that supporters of the movement are far more numerous than one might think, probably even the silent majority, who just don’t speak up because (A) they’re unaware it’s even controversial or (B) they don’t want to be castigated as Nazis on an upcoming Dividing Line.

My frustration, as an onlooker, is that despite being told by very insistent people that Christian Nationalism poses a great threat to the evangelical church, I’ve yet to see a single theological argument seriously brought against it. And for the temptation of momentarily un-retiring myself from keeping chickens to do the work for them, I grow impatient wondering when in the heck the debaters of our age are going to tell us why exactly XNat is not the greatest idea. I pray they not make me do it for them, because my chickens would miss me, and I would miss them back.

WHERE ARE THE DEBATERS OF OUR AGE?

I know what Paul felt like when he pondered the following…

Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? (1 Corinthians 1:20)

In the context of 1 Corinthians 1, Paul surmised that God was shaming the wise men because they were unable to present any argument that could dispute the folly of the gospel. What we see in the Christian Nationalism debate is not a true gospel issue, and no matter what the more dramatic opponents tell you, eternity does not hang in the balance (no matter their wailing). But the debate definitely has 1 Corinthians 1:20 vibes.

If XNat is really as terrible as they tell us, why do they present us arguments that are so terrible, gutter-level, Jesus-Juking, sloganeering, grade school sophomorisms like this…

As fun as it is, from a place of ecclesiastical authority on a throne of power apparently rivaling that of the Pope of Rome, to announce something as “unhinged” (I hear that word in James White’s voice), surely a good argument would come after. Yes?

Well, not so much, because Hick’s argument - which hits the nail straight on the…which misses the nail completely - is that we’re called to be “salt and light” everywhere we are. Which of course, is true. But to argue that by God wanting Chinese Christians to be good Christians in China somehow means the Bible forbids the establishment of Christian nations, is sub-intellectual. In fact, unless the person making the argument is stupid, I’d say it’s intellectually dishonest.

Keep in mind, I’m not a Christian Nationalist; I just hate retarded arguments. He follows it up with this…

Despite John Gill being the first commentary I searched in preparing sermons for many years, my memory bank does not recall Gill referring to a “gospel-state” (and an Internet search didn’t provide me one, either). Nonetheless, I presume this would have been in the context of his commentary on 1 Peter 2:9.

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Gill, a Historic Premillennialist, viewed this as Peter wrote it, as fulfilled in the Church. And, of course, Peter used the language given in Exodus, which then referred to the nation of Israel. Gill wrote on this verse that Peter was “referring to the same place in Exodus 19:6 where the Israelites are so called, being separated by God from other nations…”

I presume Hicks ran across this term from Gill in his studies on theonomy, as Gill is seen as an opponent of the theonomic vision and proponent of Natural Law, which he saw as God having given Adam before he wrote down the Moral Law for Moses. But it’s indeed difficult to flesh out an argument so briefly and poorly made, to determine of what Hicks speaks.

But Gill is an unfortunate divine to cite if he wants to portray him as pretending God has no designs for nation states, as though since Christ, the only nations that now exist are of the spiritual variety.

But one wonders if Hicks believes the XNats are too stupid to know that John Gill wrote thoroughly of the duties of magistrates to enforce the laws of God, or if they are only too lazy to point that out. In his Body of Practical Divinity (Chapter 4), Gill wrote….

Our kings have a concern in the making of laws; that is, they have a negative voice, and can put a check upon any laws, and refuse to sign them made by the other branches of the legislature; and it is their duty to refuse to sign such laws as are not salutary to their subjects, or are contrary to the laws of God, and to the fundamental laws of the state.

He goes much further…

Kings are the guardians of the laws of God and man; and Christian kings have a peculiar concern with the laws of the two tables, that they are observed, and the violaters of them punished; as sins against the first table, idolatry, worshipping of more gods than one, and of graven images, blaspheming the name of God, perjury, and false swearing, and profanation of the day of worship: and those against the second table; as disobedience to parents, murder, adultery, theft, bearing false witness, &c. most of which, under the former dispensation, were capital crimes, and punishable with death; and though the punishment of them, at least not all of them, may not be inflicted with that rigour now as then; yet they are punishable in some way or another; which it is the duty of magistrates to take care of.

I pray Hicks quotes from Gill sparingly in his arguments against Theonomy, or if he does, can handle him with greater care than he flings his name about on X, when criticizing Christian Nationalism. It’s sloppy work.

I realize the irony of me pointing out sloppy arguments against Christian Nationalism, as though I want it to succeed. In truth, I only want it amended and made better, and if not, then fail. But it cannot be made better if the arguments made against it are pure hogwash. The debater in me laments this type of tripe, and I cry out with Paul, “Where are the debaters of this age?”

It’s not Tom Hicks, unless he can pick it up a notch.

JESUS JUKES AND SLOGANEERING

I recently explained the Jesus Juke, and I aim not to repeat myself in every post at Insight to Incite. Let it suffice to say it’s akin to sloganeering; a simple statement meant to be repeated, but is shallow, and a tad stupid. It sounds good, but is vapid.

There are a lot of these in the arguments against Christian Nationalism.

Among these are two prominent slogans, the first of which is “the only Christian nation is the church” (using 1 Peter 2:9 usually) and the second is, “if you want a Christian nation, preach the gospel.”

Both make for bumperstickers. Neither make for arguments. On the former, it’s because a thing (whatever it is, in this case a nation) can exist on two levels. On one level, God is indeed bringing people from every tribe, tongue, and nation into a single tribe, tongue, and nation in the spiritual sense. But not even the Historic Premillennialist (like myself) can say these will never be literal, physical realities because even in the millennial reign, various nation(s) - plural - will still exist and they’ll exist at God’s good pleasure (eschatological prophecy during the millennial reign speaks of nations; plural, not singular).

Likewise, Jesus being the vine (John 15:5) doesn’t mean that vines no longer exist. Or, in one sense there is no male or female (Galatians 3:28), but in another sense, there’s still very much male and female and we all have our genitals still intact even in the glorified bodies we’ll post-resurrection.

I’m not being melodramatic when I say that the level of argumentation presented by Hicks very much hurts my heart; it’s so sad, and so pathetic, I worry for my theological tribe. If we can’t do any better than this when presenting arguments, we’re in poor shape. I pray that such arguments are only made for social media likes, which although is not a good thing, does mean we aren’t riotously stupid.

But for the latter (if you want a Christian nation, just preach the gospel), it’s equally as unserious. Jesus obviously told us something quite different, because the Great Commission includes baptizing and discipling the nations (ahem, plural) by “teaching them to obey everything I’ve commanded you.” After all, Paul made a point to mention his teaching “the full counsel of God’s Word” (Acts 20:27).

Friends, if you want to debate Christian Nationalism, you have to do better than this. The other side is on their game, and we aren’t exactly brining our best to the table. It could logically make onlookers believe that the opponents of Christian Nationalism aren’t serious about debating it all; they just want to armchair quarterback theological debates and gift-and-draft in social media, only looking like they’re taking part in a serious discussion.

TOO HEAVENLY MINDED TO BE OF ANY EARTHLY GOOD

Make no mistake about it; the appeal of Christian Nationalism is because it gives the appearance of actually trying to accomplish something in the real world. And it gives that appearance, because that’s exactly what it is. This appeals to people when they see the world going to hell around us.

Profane sloganeering and armchair quarterbacking, which is all that the anti-XNats have done up to this point, stands in stark contrast to the young men who have rolled up their sleeves and dug down into the dirt to exhume the arguments made prior to the 1788 revision of the Westminster Confession, back when all Reformed believers were Christian Nationalists.

What Hicks and others fail to realize is that they’re not just up against a novel new theory; they’re up against historic Christianity, at least, up until 1788. I like the revision, but I have to admit, it was a revision. Their arguments against Christian Nationalism, however, seem to suggest they just need to dismiss a doctrine freshly pulled from the Crackerjack Box.

I’m not sure they understand what they’re up against.

If you appreciate my work, please consider an $8 a month or $80 a year subscription to access my exclusive content, which is about 50% of what I write. This is one of the ways I provide for my small farm and big family, so I sure appreciate it.