On the Synod of Trash World, and the Necessity of Christian Diets

Christians gathering to discuss doctrine is helpful in refining good ideas, and sifting bad ones.

Some of the funnest moments in Christian history have resulted from the gathering of believers to discuss hot-button issues. I mean, who can forget St. Nick punching Arius in the face at Nicaea? Or who can forget Luther’s stand before the Pope at the Diet of Worms?

Or, more recently, who can forget Al Mohler’s face turning red, the squirming in his chair, and raising his voice to Phil Johnson at ShepCon, refusing to be pinned down on the topic Social Justice?

Lol. That one was classic.

The entire concept of such gatherings is that men, who are ordinarily separate, are better when they are together. And I don’t mean that in some kind of kumbaya way, as though the purpose is to hold hands and sing ‘Lean on Me’ together, but in an Arius-got-punched-in-the-face way.

I assure you, there’s a point to the whole enterprise of conferencing. Usually. Denominational meetings are usually the exception to this.

TREPIDATION IS UNDERSTANDABLE

I had informally discussed the future of Mohler, Dever, and Duncan and upcoming Shepherd’s Conferences with Phil Johnson in the basement of a church in Saskatchewan not long before the now ill-fated event was scheduled. My understanding is that they wouldn’t be invited, and I was quite sore to find out that they were indeed coming.

From my perspective, it made little sense to promote the Dallas Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel, and conferences and/or books to denounce Social Justice, while simultaneously ignoring the fact that those three men were at the center of Social Justice in our theological circles. And so I complained about this, a lot, and ditto for the G3 Conference held that year. I thought inviting the proponents of Social Justice, while denouncing Social Justice, was an elephant so large in the room it was impossible to ignore.

I was called all sorts of names over that, which is what happens when your convictions are a little bit more hard-wired than some. But I felt largely vindicated when that ShepCon Q&A in 2019 turned out to be such a Shinola-show. By the end, even Phil Johnson made a comment on Twitter about it being ill-advised, or something to that effect.

But after that conference was over, my opinion of such gatherings changed just a bit. It seemed that the gathering indeed served a purpose; by the end of it, it was clear whose side Albert Mohler was on. Unfortunately, the collective evangelical memory only lasts about 3 years, which is about the time it takes for Mohler to repeatedly reinvent himself.

And some credit goes to Phil Johnson, who indeed asked the tough questions that were able to - as John Knox said - “smoke out the devil’s foxes from their dens.” The G3 gathering, unfortunately, did little of that. While discussing Social Justice that year, it not only ignored the elephants in the room, they pinned lapel mics on them, proving that elephants can be ignored even if they’re at the podium.

THERE ARE INDEED TIMES OF DOCTRINAL CROSSROADS

The church has seldom had a time of absolute clarity, and even the notion of orthodoxy (which we must believe indeed exists) is sometimes unclear.

This passage from Ephesians speaks a bit about the process of growth that the Apostle Paul knew the church would experience, from his time onward. I’ll give credit to Sam Waldron for my understanding of it, which if memory serves, he exegeted in a debate on Cessationism with Matt Slick:

“Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ (Ephesians 4:13-15).

The reason why this passage was brought up by Waldron in that debate is peripheral to my point. The illumination needed is what Paul meant by, “Till we all come in the unity of the faith…”

As Waldron described it, and I concur, the church indeed went through a time of maturity. The church was not yet mature according to this verse. It would be ascertained at a future in point in time, and until that point, all the gifts Christ had given to the church would be needed.

Waldron claimed - and again, I concur - that the church reached maturity (in a sense) shortly after the close of the canon. The “unity of the faith” was reached, Waldron thinks, as the early councils unified the church with codifying essential Christian doctrines.

The Council of Nicaea unified the church around the divinity of Christ. The Council of Constantinople unified the church around the divinity of the Holy Ghost, and so on. In addition, the ancient creeds unified the church. The Apostles’ creed unified the church to summarize Christian doctrine. The Nicaean, Chalcedon, Athanasian, etc all unified the church.

I have no problem with Waldron’s interpretation that the church reached a certain unity in these confessions and creeds, although that unity was soon split again by Papist inventions. But was the church indeed mature?

Yes, it was. The church was mature in the early centuries, in the same way that a 14 year-old girl or a 17 year-old boy is mature. In the sense that they are physically something other than a child, they are mature. But despite my 18 year-old boy having the mature stature of a man at six feet and eight inches tall, I assure you he still has maturing yet to do.

In other words, the church has already been established upon the Apostles and Prophets. Its foundation, already laid. But make no mistake about it, over the ages, Christians have invented bad ideas that had to be dispelled, and good ideas that had to be rediscovered (all good ideas have already existed). It is not so much a “growing up” that the Christian church is yet doing, but a growing-out. I hope my giant of a son has stopped growing up, but he definitely needs to start growing out. Such it is - and has always been - with the church.

BIBLICAL PRECEDENT EXISTS FOR SUCH GATHERINGS

The first council of the church was held in Jerusalem, and you can find it in Acts 15. Sometimes it is called the First Apostolic Council.

The question was not one of doctrinal truth, but doctrinal application. The crisis of the hour (which all councils were called on account of) was what exactly should be done with Christian Jews, who were quite hesitant to let go of their traditions. The Apostles deliberated amongst themselves, and appeared to defer to the judgment of Jesus’ brother, James, the pastor of the church in Jerusalem.

They all recognized, having spent time with Jesus, that Christ had made all meats clean so far back as Mark 7:19. They heard it from his own mouth. And the Apostles already had to struggle with legitimate Judaism, being the same religion as legitimate Christianity (there’s no distinction; God only has one true religion). But what should be done with all the sticky, controversial, messy details as it regards the Jewish traditions that are, in effect, foreshadows of a Christ that has already come?

Their decision was simple; everything was kosher (ahem) except for meat that had been strangled (because it was associated with pagan sacrifice) and straight-up blood (because in a Jewish mind, and most of ours, that’s pretty gross). This amounted to an agreement between the Apostles that unified them in how they would work out the truth they already knew, in the complicatedness of time, space, and culture.

Today, there are also wrinkles that have to be ironed, that are - like then - unique to our time, space and culture. And a meeting of the minds is sometimes necessary.

THE CRISIS OF THE HOUR

It is with great lament that I announce, from my humble perspective, that little (if any) serious work has been done to debate the merits of so-called “Christian Nationalism” in a setting of mutual respect. This is unfortunate, because like the Apostles in Acts 15, both sides largely agree on the truth, but need clarity on its application.

It’s indeed a sticky situation. Let me attempt to summarize the major issues:

We can all affirm (hopefully) that God desires the nations recognize Christ as King, whether or not the Nazis used that slogan. We should all affirm that the best laws are laws that affirm God’s will. We should all affirm that the government’s job is to punish the wicked and reward good (Romans 13, 1 Peter 2). We should all affirm that what is evil, and what is good, is defined by God and God Almighty alone.

What about the other pressing issues? Let me explain the other dire, dire issues that must be addressed to resolve everything you see in the paragraph above:

Does the second world war to have a context? Must we accept the Post-War Consensus? Was Churchill an altruistic hero or a misunderstood villain? Did the Jews really orchestrate the Bolshevik Revolution and run the Weimar Republic? Why are Jews always disproportionately represented in the Ten Most Evil People in the World list? Why do birds fly south for the winter? How many angels can dance on the head of a needle? Who could win in a fight, Voddie Baucham or Benny Hinn, if Benny Hinn can flail his Holy Ghost coat? Why does Joel Webbon look so much like Matt Walsh? How do the Ogden guys get such magnificent facial hair? Why doesn’t James White ride his bike any more? When did he get a tattoo sleeve? What the heck happened to Joel McDurmon? What are the home addresses of these anonymous accounts? What’s their blood type? Anybody know their pastors? What does Aristotle have to do with this? Why do lesbians all have nose rings?

Yeah, so the thing is, none of those matters are essential matters in sorting this out. And they’re all distractions from the type of sincere discussions that need to be worked out. Imagine if at the Jerusalem Council, Thomas kept insisting that Bartholomew thought the angels stirring the waters in John 5:4 was a literal angel, and not a historic myth? What if Thaddeus had kept bringing up Matthias’ rushed apostolic appointment?

You see, we can’t have discussions that can further mature the church with this type of garbage constantly being re-heated on a plate and served up to us. It distracts us from getting the necessary work done to determine what’s good, and determine what needs sifted out.

CALLING ALL ADULTS TO THE ROOM

Frankly, I’m giddy with excitement at the prospect of seeing these things worked out, as it pertains to Christian Nationalism, even from my view in the cheap seats. I am, it turns out, part nerd. Imagine the fun!

Let me describe the levity and enjoyment and downright awesomeness that could be had if minds would come together:

Christian Reconstruction is the notion that believers (usually understood in a post-millennial paradigm) are called to “take dominion” (Genesis 1:26-28) over the world around us. Whether or not you want to define that by seven mountains or culture or not, Christian Reconstruction purports that Christians must conquer and control various aspects around us, ranging from the entertainment and arts to education, from government to the home, and from business to media.

Do you appreciate my work but don’t want a subscription? Consider showing some love by a one-time donation of your choosing by clicking below.

The crazy thing is, some opponents of Christian Nationalism hold to Christian Reconstruction, and how that works exactly, or how that’s consistent, is anybody’s guess because it’s even broader and more strenuous than taking over just government.

Does Christian Nationalism require imposing First Table laws, dealing with our responsibilities to God? In other words, are we to pass blasphemy laws, laws against false religions, or laws against idolatry? If we enforced the First Table, and the Second Commandment, can we let in the Papists? Seems to me they have a ton of idols. If we pass laws against Sabbath breaking, can the Seventh Day Adventists join, or the Seventh Day Church of God? Or do they get punished for laboring on Sunday so they can observe Saturday?

Even better, are we letting in false religionists who identify as Christians? Are we letting in the Pope? The Mormons? The Eastern Orthodox? Are we letting in the people that our confessions of faith indicate are not Christians? And if we are, why are we calling it Christian Nationalism? Can we rename it Christendom Nationalism? Or Christian(ish) Nationalism?

If we’re enforcing the First Table, if it includes removing the First Amendment, how is that different from Chapter 25 in the original, Pre-1788 Westminster Confession of Faith? Is this just a discussion on whether or not the divines were justified in amending the confession to accord to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution?

Are we taking into account that attempts to enforce religion, historically speaking, have led to more dead Christians than Jews killed in the Holocaust? Who’s gonna be in charge of this thing? Francis? David French? Albert Mohler? Who gets to determine that? Are we drawing straws?

I suppose all of these have answers, but I suspect that even among self-professed Christian Nationalists, they don’t all agree on those answers.

HEY CALVIN ROBINSON

And then, this Mary-praying Catholic-lite guy gets invited to the upcoming Trash World Conference (for those who are unaware, this is a conference in April of most of the prominent personalities in the movement).

I’m unaware of Robinson, other than Douglas Wilson was fine with him not long ago, that he prays to Mary, and that he tweets a lot. But can you really support a conference with a guy who smells of papistry speaking? To be quite clear, I don’t like it.

I’ve been asked if I “agree with inviting Robinson” about a million times (I’m rounding down), and thought it a weird question to ask. I think “agree” implies I was asked, or ever would be asked, or had a say in it. It’s like asking if I agree with Biden giving Soros the Medal of Freedom; I wasn’t asked. I do hate it, though.

The main question is if the Reformed Christian Nationalists are giving him an honorary membership as a Protestant, in the same way that the G3 guys gave James Lindsay an honorary membership as an evangelical. Is Sola Fide being compromised?

God forbid, I hope not. But you know what, whether or not we’re including Catholics in this thing we’re attempting, makes this invitation a timely conversation piece.

THE HOLY SPIRIT SORTS STUFF OUT

I wish that certain apologists and theology fiefdom warlords would lend their services to help the process of doctrine-sifting, but it appears they’re too busy lobbing schism grenades to stop and be of some assistance. But alas, they have not bothered with presenting any theological arguments that the Christian Nationalists are wrong, being content in trying to prove that the Christian Nationalists are bad.

But, you know what? That’s okay. We must be convinced that the guidance of the Holy Ghost is sufficient to sift doctrine, even if the boomers don’t want to help. The Holy Spirit, Jesus said, will “lead you to the knowledge of truth.”

Trash World might turn out to be a goat-rope. But ecumenical councils trying to grow-out the Body of Christ usually are; heretics sometimes get punched in the face. But as for me, I believe that the boys in charge of the anti-establishment insurrection are capable of getting together and doing the work of making sure that what they’re doing is reclaiming old ideas, and not inventing new ones.

And in that, I pray the Diet of Trash World, the First Ecumenical Council of Christian Nationalism, and the Synod of XNat Meme Creators, serves the end of unifying the church in truth.