This is from a thread on Twitter, it can be found here as well: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1780261391133278227.html
On @douglaswils and the @TuckerCarlson interview, Christian Nationalism, and whether the solution is in fact political or not. This will be lengthy, and I'm writing on the fly. So here goes:
I've been more critical in the last year or so of Doug Wilson than I've ever been. I've defended him in the main for close to a decade on the whole FV controversy, the "pedophile" stuff, and the slavery stuff. I don't agree with all his theology and practice, but he's faithful.
I've been most frustrated recently with his expressions on homosexuality/"gay but celibate" stuff as seen in his discussions with @jaredhmoore and others. It's not Sam Alberry bad, but he has supported him before. Kind of like how he's not FV Dark but but does defend them.
The Jewish Question, as it is put, is also frustrating. I've not yet read his book Milk and Honey, but I've heard enough interviews and discussions with him to indicate to me he's got some complicated views that aren't helpful. Even if we treat the Jews as Paul, an actual Jew did
(and I don't think we should because we are not their kinsman according to the flesh, among other things), I don't think Paul said we should be Evangelizing Gentiles for the sake of the Jews to be provoked to jealousy, to bring in the Postmill golden age, or something like that.
As @spanglermt & others said online, the Jews, on the whole, are enemies of the Gospel. That's simply quoting Paul himself, Romans 11:28. Yes, they are beloved for the sake of the fathers, but until God in mass softens Jewish hearts, throughout history they're Gospel enemies.
So Wilson has baggage from those on the left and right at this point, the Confessional hardliners, and all sorts of places. He is well read, and sort of stitches various strands together into something both old school but also somehow rather novel. This brings mixed results.
I believe he's written stuff like "Theocratic Libertarianism" because, well, that's just how he is. It can be frustrating, it can be helpful, it can be both confusing and clarifying. He doesn't always synthesize well, but he definitely serves as a gateway drug to helpful things.
For me, he's best at Christian family and education, the duties of parents to their children, fathers in the home, and covenant faithfulness, succession, qualifications for Elders concerning their children, etc. Minus the soft paedo-credo communion mess (and the CREC issues), I
think his teaching and his family is a great testimony to God's faithfulness and kindness, and Wilson's faith and parenting by God's promises. In a day where so many family homes are broken, and pastor kids are the most wicked, that's almost a unicorn. Tucker was deeply impressed
on this point. If you watch the full interview, the last quarter or so focuses on these matters, Sabbath dinners, etc. We can poo poo that Wilson's sabbath dinners are on Saturday night. Whatever. Family religion is essential, Wilson's lane was originally Christian education, and
that is what he is best at and shined the most in the Tucker interview.
But the first 3/4 or so of the interview was of course focused on what Christian Nationalism actually is. It's fair to say there are some competing visions for that, and Wilson and @PerfInjust, who wrote
the actual book on the subject, have differing views in key places. Wilson is more Christian Reconstruction/Theonomic, but doesn't fly the CR label. He's eclectic as usual. He claims presuppositionalism yet helped found the modern CLASSICAL Christian school movement. Go figure.
I'm re-listening to the interview as we go here, but Wilson does say, and this may sound more theonomic than some like but it's still true, that it is not whether morality will be legislated, but which/whose. He does reference the 10 commandments, says you do not legislate lusts
(he gives the example of a man reading a dirty magazine; that begs the question of course of whether you'd legislate the legality of pornographic literature. I trust Wilson would say yes, it should be illegal), that there's no criminal penalty for the 10th commandment.
I don't think he was crisp or clear here, and thought he beat around the bush too much, and this was admittedly his weakest area. But, he did say that God's law must be legislated, that Christians will legislate pagans better than pagans will legislate Christians, etc.
He thankfully didn't say this in the interview, but I've heard him say things like "it'll be 500 years before we really need/can consider legislating against X sin". He does reference a case where the U.S. Supreme Court Justice in 1892 or so re-affirmed we are a Christian nation.
Wilson repeatedly says yes, we will legislate and impose morality, and the God of the Bible's morality. The 10 commandments fit on a postcard, the Bible is one volume on a shelf. At one point he is speaking and Tucker Carlson says "we used to call that natural law" or something.
Natural law I do think is where Wilson, etc., are weaker, and Wolfe, etc., recovering our Reformed tradition, are much stronger. This also gets to how we answer the question of whether our solution is political or not. If there's no use for natural law/revelation, etc., politics
is out, unless/until the politicians/rulers themselves are regenerated by the Spirit at minimum, if not also the mass populace is largely converted. This may be where Wilson waffles a bit, given his sort of inconsistent CR/presup views, mixed with classical reading/thought.
Yet, I think we can all acknowledge that the mind leavened by sound reason, the light of nature and Scripture, is beneficial and has a leavening effect, even on the unregenerates at times. Maybe hardline presup cannot affirm this. But I am sure Wilson can/does. King Cyrus anyone?
At root, Wilson seems to be saying, given our particular circumstances in 2024 in the U.S.A., the declension and structure of our government systems, the breakdown and discord, being overwhelmed with mass immigration & no assimilation (which he explicitly mentions to Tucker), we
have no *mere* political solution, and the emphasis will have to be on preachers proclaiming the Gospel with boldness, raising their children faithfully in the Lord, cleaning house in our own church house, etc. I don't think he's denying we can and should do two things at once.
He wants to go back to 1893 when the Supreme Court Justice acknowledged we are a Christian Nation (something along those lines, can't remember now), and so I imagine he'd say in the 1950's there probably was more of a political solution alone, or primarily. Granted, he'd likely
say that because there were more Christians, both genuine and at least nominal/cultural Christians. I think this is where Wolfe and others, like @contramordor would depart. They'd say you don't need tons of Christians to have political change, perhaps even that political change
is the only way, in God's providence, you are really going to get lasting reformation and revival. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church is a great slogan, but at some point, the magistrates have to allow those seeds to take root, mature, and throw some water on it.
The Kings of Israel were to know and read and guide the people in the law of God. Without our rulers leading in word and deed according to God's law, punishing and rewarding accordingly, the people/populace will have no clear guidance, support, encouragement. This is necessary.
So is the solution political, and is Christian Nationalism a political enterprise? For Wolfe and others, it absolutely is. It is not in the domain really of the Church. For Wilson, it is less clear. Wilson does say we do not want an Ecclesiocracy. 2 or 1 kingdoms comes in here.
Politics as its own discipline, distinct from Theology, is part of issue at play here. Can we from Nature develop a political system and idea, or must we only be guided by special revelation? Wolfe and others differ from the Clark/R2K types by affirming natural law is moral law.
Further, in both Church and State, which Wilson affirms as a distinction and says the Church came up with that, all agree that God's law must come to bear. The question is, where do we begin? Must it be with Special Revelation, and more the domain of the Church, or natural law?
If you start with natural law, it isn't divorced from Scripture, but comports with it, but from the light of nature, not directly or only from Scripture itself. It affirms that unbelievers and the unregenerate mind recognize right and wrong, truth and falsehood, & can/must govern
accordingly. Hardline presup types deny this, & you get the tired "how do you know that" or "by what standard" over and over again. That might be a tactic that has worked in our lifetime, but what if Aristotle says, "why, I know this to be true from God"? You can say "which God"
But that misses the point. Unbelievers know the true God, and can acknowledge Him, His existence, His Godhead and glory, without loving Him and serving Him from a heart of saving faith. They can serve Him as governors and govern according to His Word, yet hate Him from the heart.
This happens throughout history, we sometimes still see it today, imperfectly of course, but then again, what Christian perfectly serves the Lord from even their regenerate hearts and minds?
This makes government and God's law from the light of nature the domain of all people, not just Christians. Certainly, the noetic effects of sin are strong, and we want Christians, regenerate ones, in government and office. But just as I'd rather have a skilled dentist rather than a Christian Pastor work on my teeth, I'd rather have a skilled, unbelieving ruler
to put it plainly, someone like a Donald Trump, than a true Christian who has no clue how to govern or run a country, how to deal with people, & probably has poor theology and isn't ruling his own household well.
A real Christian could attempt murder, & a pagan could stop him.
If an unregenerate person rose up and said he's going to govern in ways that are good for all under their care, by the light of natural law and the remaining understanding God has preserved in the unbeliever, I would take that as a mercy of God if no Christian would do the same.
I'm rambling and need to wrap this up. From what I gather, all in this discussion, from Wolfe to Wilson, affirm we need political rulers who govern according to what is true, according to God. How to get there, what to lead with, the need/role of Christian preaching, are debated.
In truth, both sides would affirm, I am sure, that ideally we have both bottom-up and top-down reform, but one side is going to say one must happen before the other does, and the other is going to say the opposite must move first. Perhaps, we should pray for both, & may the Lord
use whichever one He desires to take the leading edge. I'd gladly take a Christian Prince over a largely un-regenerate and un-Christian populace. I'd gladly take massive reform within the Church, false preachers being cut down and exposed, true preachers standing boldly. Give me
all of the above. I want both now, and I think each person in their own spheres should labor for these things, and as Christians, whether you are a politician, pastor, or neither, you should pray for and urge on both, and do what you can to see both increase, in your place.
/END
Comments
Post a Comment