By: Thomas F. Booher
UPDATE (4/29/2023): As the discussion/debate/smearing rages on, I stand by the gist of all I have said below. Seeing how G3/others are mischaracterizing the Christian Nationalists is a pretty sad affair. I do think the CN group (which I'm favorable toward and in principle agree we need Christian Nationalism, depending on how it is defined) could explain things better, but they make the point that no amount of explaining will assuage the other side, and so shock jock tactics as something of a last resort to draw attention is the only viable, effective method. I'm coming around to them on this, even if I still have some disagreements with how it is done. But if they are erring on the side of "sin boldly for the truth", the other side seems to be erring on "sin cowardly for compromise (though of course they believe they fight for truth)".
The only other thing I'd like to add is some thoughts on the recent discussion of the pros and cons of cultural Christianity. What should be obvious is that the only alternative to cultural Christianity is a culture that is not Christian in any meaningful or even loose sense. What many fear, understandably, is the bankrupt, nominal Christianity that we have in our nation now, which has led to woke Christianity. Some see the earlier cultural Christianity as the cause of apostate/nominal Christianity that has birthed the false religion of woke Christianity. While there may be some truth to this, the CN folks are defining cultural Christianity differently. In essence, it is the social pressure and government morality that harmonizes with and upholds the law of God, summarized in the 10 commandments. Even if not done from the heart, a government that seeks to uphold this, and a citizenry that culturally/socially sees this as the norm, is a great blessing. And the only way such cultural Christianity ever formed in the first place is godly founders of our nation, both in politics and pulpits, having more than just a cultural Christianity, but the heart of true, saving faith, and the pressure that genuine Christians apply in society and government, a righteous pressure. [End of Update]
I'd like to lay out my thoughts on the whole Christian
Nationalism discussion, and it's connection to the Achord/Aadland dustup, and
how Kinism is sometimes mixed into all this. I want to center on what is called
"natural affections" vs. "Gospel affections", as well as
what for me is the crux of the issue, how much our nature vs. nurture
contributes to all these intersecting discussions.
First, I've listened to Stephen Wolfe
and Achord's podcast a handful of times, though not recently. But from
discussions I have seen online with them, and some of my own
comments/questions, I appreciated what they were saying and the insight they
were retrieving. I say retrieving because their views aren't really novel by
and large. I have Achord's anthology, and have only dabbled in it, and I have
just begun Wolfe's The Case for Christian Nationalism. But I've followed the
reviews and online discussions of all this a fair bit over the last few weeks.
Achord's admission of being the owner of Aadland's Twitter account certainly
surprised me, and yet thinking back I can see this being the case based on some
posts he had made a while back, probably around the same time the Aadland
account was "exposed" by Alastair Roberts on his Twitter account.
(Roberts has had his own pseudonym Twitter accounts and has had a co-host on a
podcast involved with homo ReVoice, so I’m told, so pot meet kettle).
Jon Harris's recent video over at Conversations That Matter really outlines the
issues well in about 18 minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P__a1eV9wbU
Trying to talk to some of the men who are being charged as racists, bigots, white supremacists, kinists, etc., was difficult for me at first. They weren't interested in explaining their positions very much (some of them at least, not all). They pegged me quickly as a "Gospel affection" person who was just going to bash them. That was frustrating, but I don't really care at this point, and kept asking questions, and finally got some answers from them rather than just trollish remarks or jokes. (The Harris video helps explain why they would respond to me and others the way they did, which doesn’t justify them but does give some needed context.) I came to appreciate and even gain a lot of insight from a fair bit of what they were saying, and I think they appreciated my listening and learning and providing feedback/my own thoughts, even though we differed to some degree.
Stephen Wolfe, the author of the popular The Case for Christian Nationalism, to
my knowledge rejects being a Kinist. You don't have to be a Kinist to embrace
the idea of Christian Nationalism. Recognizing that multi-culturalism doesn't
work, is against nature, and contrary to Scripture is not racist or kinist in
some sort of boogeyman, evil sense. Loving your own people, your own place,
worshiping your own God, the one true God, is straight up biblical and natural.
It's the promise God made to Israel, to His covenant people, to give them land,
descendants, and blessing, where God will be a God to them and they will
worship Him as His people.
None less than the Reformed Pastor, Theologian, and Bible Commentator Matthew
Henry speaks of the Great Commission as a call to make nations "Christian
nations" and even that "Christianity should be twisted in with
national constitutions, that the kingdoms of the world should become Christ's
kingdoms, and their kings the church's nursing-fathers" (Isa. 49:23). I am
not saying Wolfe's project is the same as what Henry had in mind, I am not
informed enough yet to even comment one way or another on that, but the idea of
Christian nations is nothing new, but rather part of our Reformed Heritage. https://purelypresbyterian.com/2017/04/03/the-great-commission-matthew-henry/
Thomas Achord says he himself is half Mexican. Some of those involved with
White Boy Summer (WBS) are in interracial marriages, and are not white
themselves! So the simplistic charge that these folks are just white
supremacist bigot racists damned to hell is stupid nonsense. Their ideas and
the way they express them might not be the wisest or clearest to those on the
outside, but is coming from a place of frustration and hurt, and actually
engaging with them reveals, by and large, that thinking the worst of their
position is usually unwarranted.
To care for your own family, particularly your wife and children, grandparents,
and those in your community, is plainly biblical. I can't imagine I have to
cite Scripture to support that. The kinists want to extend this, it seems, to
extended family, and ancestry, in a way that seems stronger than warranted. If
we think of the ripples made in water when tossing a rock, my ancestors from
Germany 500 years ago are at best the last ripple before there are no more
ripples (of no real importance to me any longer), and I would certainly say
that non-family in my church, and even others God sends my way who live near me
that I don't know from Adam, and have no kindred relationship to beyond being
made in the image of God, demand more of my time and concern than acquainting
myself with the culture and practice of my ancestors 500+ years ago. At the
same time, isn’t it interesting how many want to get in touch with their
ancestors, having their blood tested, and shouldn’t we care about the Pilgrims,
etc.?
This gets at the question of natural affections, how far and strongly they
extend, and how do they interact with so-called "Gospel affections".
The two should not be pitted against one another. Grace restores nature, even
brings it to its culmination in glory for God's people. A lot of discussion
revolves around Gen. 10-11, which I am not studied enough to say too much
about, and then what occurs in Acts 2. Is Acts 2 a reversal of Babel, and if
so, in what sense? Are nations, differing tribes and tongues, a good thing, an eternal
thing, or something the Gospel "overcomes" and restores unity such
that nations, tribes, and tongues are obliterated? Is division into nations a
post-fall reality and therefore a curse the Gospel must erase, or a blessing
God has given to us in order to enable us to be fruitful and multiply, fill the
Earth and subdue it? If man had been obedient rather than build Babel, wouldn’t
nations, tribes, dialects of tongues, etc., naturally form anyway? Will
nations and tribes and tongues extend into eternity, or will we be no
particular race/ethnicity at all in heaven, beyond the "human race"?
In my discussions with the soft Kinist wing, it seems they
believe nations and tribes absolutely are good and will continue into eternity,
and that each nation and tribe should seek out its own good above all. I see no
reason to disagree with this. That people are redeemed out of every tribe, tongue,
and nation to serve the Lord does not mean that they lose their ethnicity in
glory, no more so than a man ceases to be a man, or a woman a woman in glory. To
say we shouldn’t look out for our own good would seem to also require open
borders, or at least some form of multi-cultural goulash. Applying this to
churches that demand each individual church be multi-ethnic, and you see how
important this discussion is. I was lectured by a black minister in the PCA at
a Presbytery meeting that we were anti-Gospel and sinners because the PCA in
general was so white, and most of the white pastors churches were predominately
white. As if we could play the Holy Spirit, or as if God demanded we have a
rainbow of ethnicities in each of our churches to truly be biblical!
Eschatology matters. If our heritage, culture, nation, and even skin
pigmentation are all temporary, is it not fairly ephemeral and meaningless
eternally? But if it is part of who we are in God's image, something that is
elevated into the heavenly places, then should it not be valued and cherished
deeply now as well? And not just whites, but red, yellow, black and white, all
being precious in God's sight? Rev. 21:26 says "And into the city will be
brought the glory and honor of the nations." A few verses up we read that
the nations of those that are saved shall walk in the light of the glory of
God, and the Lamb is the light, and kings of the earth will bring their glory
and honour into the heavenly, holy Jerusalem. We know this city is God's
people, the gates the 12 tribes of Israel, the foundation the 12 Apostles. The
people of God brought into glory reflects God’s glory through the prism of
nations, Christian nations, holy nations as one people, one holy nation. So you
have “nations” and “nation”. The two can and do go together.
Certainly the focus of the Rev. 21 passage is the holiness of the saved people
from these nations, for nothing defiled/unclean shall enter in, Rev. 21:27. The
upshot seems to be that all nations can be Christian nations, people from all
nations will be redeemed, nations are not obliterated in glory but recognized,
and all are holy unto the Lord. Revelation 7 seems to be an important passage.
Matthew Poole notes that the 144,000 refers to Gentile converts, and the
multitude mentioned after from all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues are
another group. We see they are wearing white robes, and yet there is still a
recognition of these people coming from all nations, tribes, peoples, and
tongues. To not belabor this any further, your nationhood, tribe, people, and
tongue matter eternally. Is this multitude assembled according to their
tribes/nations, or are they all mixed in together? That's something to consider,
but that tribes and nations are still recognized is the only point I wish to
establish.
Our Gospel affections do not destroy natural affections. They work in tandem, in harmony. There is unity in diversity, diversified unity, and of course there is, for we are made in the image of the Triune God -- the ultimate unity in diversity. God's people will reflect that because they reflect Him. Tribe, tongue, and nation are united, not obliterated, in Christ. We distinguish the nations in glory, but we do not divorce them from their unity in God/Christ.
Finally is the nature vs. nurture discussion. This is most important to me. If
what I am saying above is in the ballpark of truth, then there cannot be an
eternal hierarchy of races/ethnicity in glory. All tribes are around the temple
equally, though certainly some tribes of Israel were more blessed than others.
No person, no ethnicity/nation/race, is relegated to the nosebleed section in
glory, simply for being of that particular ethnos. Nurture throughout
Scripture, covenant nurture, Gospel proclamation, Gospel nurture, restores
nature. Fallen nature cannot restore itself. The Gospel by the power of the
Spirit can, and does, and does so in a hurry. But God confines all, Jew and
Gentile alike, in Romans 3, as falling short of God’s glory, and He doesn’t
give us a pecking order. We are all unrighteous and none does good, no not one.
Whatever advances this or that race/ethnicity has made over the years above
others, all the credit, glory, and honor ultimately must go to God Himself. If
not, then why cannot individuals also take some credit, glory, and honor for
themselves?
So those who are seriously open to or embracing the idea that bad nurture over
many multiple generations of peoples in a given race/ethnicity/tribe has such
an impact that it is transmitted (through procreation/genetically, etc.?) from
one generation to the next, such that after hundreds or thousands of years a
person is manifestly inferior, with vastly lower IQ's, more prone to the worst
of sins, and therefore ought well to be looked at with suspicion -- or further,
isolated from society or put into forced slavery or labor -- simply isn't
following the evidence that I have seen, but more importantly is contradicting
Scripture's own teaching. Now, I don't know if anyone that I have interacted
with is suggesting what I am saying here, that we should round up black people
(or other groups) and enslave them, or even put them on a lower tier. But it
does seem some are at least open to the idea that black people (perhaps others
as well?) are inferior because of bad breeding, nature, and not just or
overwhelmingly due to nurture. Salvation, regeneration, the transformation of
the Gospel, doesn't bow down to supposedly bad breeding and/or nurturing over
hundreds and thousands of years. Does not individual conversion accounts from
Paul to modern day examples teach us this?
Nurture restores nature, if we want to put it that way. But even if there's a
5-10 point spread of IQ points, and it could somehow be demonstrated that this
had to do with nature and not nurture among various tribes, so what? IQ alone
does not indicate one's abilities. Is it not the white woke academics that are
falling prey to the mind virus more than most at this time, or are at least most
using it maliciously to manipulate others? Neither nature nor Scripture
warrants seeing inferior and superior races/tribes based on nature. Of course
on the basis of nurture, culture, heritage, etc., we absolutely see this
playing out plainly, and seen and taught throughout Scripture.
If you go down the path of some nations, tribes, etc., being naturally better,
even if you say it was due to a good long line of nurture, you are going down
an unbiblical and unnatural path. (To be clear, I do affirm that one born into
a Christian nation, or a culture that has had more of the restraining grace/goodness
of God, is likely to be better and fair better than being born in a demonic,
dark, pagan nation/culture.) This is what the hyper "Gospel affections
crowd" seem to be branding most everyone who even remotely likes Wolfe's
book, or acknowledges that Achord has made some good points, or that not all
Kinists are created equal. Which is to say, they are probably concerned I am a
racist bigot, whether I realize it or not.
But I return to the point that some of those in the WBS group, and Achord
himself, are not "pure whites". So how many are actually saying
something like "bad nature from hundreds or thousands of years of bad
nurture means you are immutably stuck as an inferior person/race/image bearer, so
too bad for you, we are supreme and will be for at least another 500
years"? Probably none of them are saying this. And yet, if you look at
that Achord account under the name of Aadland, there is a post where he
certainly seems to suggest this, that white slave owners had a heavy hand
because they knew what would happen if blacks were set free. Maybe he said that
in a moment of weakness, frustration, etc. Maybe he was being hyperbolic, and
just meant that the black nurture at that time was so inferior that simply
setting them free would be disastrous for both them and white folks.
Regardless, it did not come across that way in the screenshot I saw (which is
part of the problem with isolated screenshots). So, even if at times what some
have been saying has raised my own eyebrows, I am not jumping to the conclusion
that they all are knuckle dragging white supremacist racist bigots; I may be
misunderstanding them to some extent, whether it is my own fault/ignorance or
their incoherence, it doesn't matter.
I'll leave it at that.
Comments
Post a Comment