Category Archives: Radically Reformed

A Rejoinder to Christian Nationalism[s] via Appeal to a radical Reformation

Posted on by

If you’re on X, the site formerly known as Twitter—Christian theological X, in particular—you will more than likely be exposed to a certain mode of so-called Christian Nationalism. This mode is of a modern postmillennial variety of the theonomic type. Without getting into the nuts-and-bolds of said framework, it essentially believes that the Great Commission entails the Christianizing of the entire world; in other words, the establishment of a Christendom. Some might look at a post-Constantinian world as what a Christendom involves. So, that is one take on a theological Christian Nationalism, which is seeing some legs under it these days. There is another type that is more philosophically based; maybe of the type that the French revolution was motivated by. A nationalism motivated by the self-determination of the people; we might even think of Libertarians in this way, or even of the Republic we inhabit de jure (in principle) in the United States of America (loosely conceived). It is the latter type the rest of my post will be responding to.

I had a friend pushback on me, on FB, with reference to a short little post I posted earlier today. I wrote: “I understand the impulses for a Christian nationalism, but I am not a proponent. We aren’t actually in Babylon (like Israel), we’re already/not yet in the Kingdom of the risen Christ; emissaries.” The pushback from the friend (and I won’t use his name because I didn’t ask him if I could use his quote here) went like this:

Maybe I don’t see the eschatological tinges to Christian nationalism. It seems more practical, or commonsensical to me. If you’re given the responsibility for, say, passing traffic laws, and setting the budget to expand the existing roadways and water treatment plant, or are faced with formulating some kind of immigration law or setting the penalties for crimes… does it really matter if the kingdom is not yet? Does that have any relevance to the question? Seems like you have to make the best decision that you can whether the kingdom is here or not here. And for the Christian, that will be informed by Christian convictions and not naturalistic or atheistic ones. “Ok, ok, you’re an emissary. I get it. Now, what should we do about the problems caused by these pharmacy-benefit managers? People can’t afford their prescriptions.”

My response was the following (off the top):

I suppose make decisions and support movements that are in line with best bearing witness to the kingdom. The church is not the state, and vice versa; but both are claimed by the domain of the Word, of Christ. The church’s role in the singular kingdom of God, which encompasses ALL of creation, is to bear witness; which often entails resistance etc. I’m unsure though how passing laws etc. constitutes a *Christian Nationalism* per se. That is not what most Christian Nationalist proponents of today (they are en masse on Twitter) are motivated by. It is indeed about spreading a Christendom that will pervade the entire globe; of the type that will usher in the consummate kingdom. I don’t know how to think about this abstractly either. I see some proposing a Christian Nationalism as if some type of sanitized theory of government that remains just as buffered as the secular does from thinking things from a genuinely theological imaginary. Which is ironic, since it is claiming to be “Christian.” I’m unsure what “Christian convictions” are in abstraction from the kingdom, what are those? And if there isn’t a distinction, then in what way would/could you differentiate your view of a Christian Nationalist from the postmil reconstructionists I have in mind? It seems to me that your premise, in regard to Christian convictions (which I believe are real), without some sort of robust qualification, starts functioning, ironically, in the same way that the postmil theory does. In other words, what makes your inchoate theory of a “Christian” nationalism distinct from the theonomists version in function? If we are in the world, but not of it, then how does that bear upon the relationship of nationhood vis a vis ultimate and prior commitments as those are conditioned by being ambassadors of the kingdom? IOW, I don’t see a Christian + Nationalist as a possibility. I see Christians inhabiting nations, indeed, as emissaries from another country. But not one detached from this world, but precisely and concretely for it. But not from an abstract set of conditions in the world, but from the concrete conditions of the primacy of Christ as the telos and eschatos of all creation. I think our primary task as Christians in the now of the kingdom is to bear witness to the not yet; as we all (of creation) are in fact in the kingdom of the risen Christ. So, I see the world, indeed, as the kingdom of Christ, waiting its final victory when Christ will finally place the last enemy, death, under his feet. As Christians in His kingdom, then, we ought to be about bearing prophetic and martyrological witness to the inner ground and reality of all of creation; inclusive of the nations. How this informs the way the Christian operates within the parameters of whatever nation they find themself within, will take shape by asking the questions of what it means to be a *witness* (an ambassador). I don’t see those questions and answers being formed by someone’s status within this or that nation, per se; but by someone who recognizes that they are of the city whose maker is God. This does not evade the question of laws regarding mundanities such as civil law etc., but it frames it within a kingdom rather than an absolutely “nationalistic” frame.

I don’t think it is possible, of course, to have a politick without a theopolitical framework (in that sense the postmils are onto something). So, I reject this idea that there is some pure notion of nationhood that isn’t somehow absolutely entangled with the kingdom of Christ. To think those as if different spheres (Kuyper) make no sense to me. Clearly, I’m functioning from a universalistic logic; but one, again, that is kingdom/Christ conditioned rather than abstractly or untheologically framed. E.g., if you talk to a progressive Christian (typically democratic socialist) they would see pharmacological laws as profoundly grounded in the reality of kerygmatic and thus ecclesial witness bearing activity. Ironically, their respective theopolitical theory has a utopian end to it (really not much different than a theonomic postmil). But I’m somewhere in that mix as well, as far as seeing the theological framing of these matters. I don’t really understand what you mean by “commonsensical” or “practical.”

My responses are very rough draft-like inklings that need to be developed much further. But as far as a conversational response on the way, I think they reflect the heart of the matter for me. I need to finally sit down and write out my own theopolitical theory, in a way that has substantial development and thematic coherence through and through. But the above is what I opine for now, and what floats my boat for the moment. I am seemingly radically Reformed, even when it comes to my theopolitic; with leanings toward a qualified type of Anabaptism.

An Update on My Theological Identity: Radically Reformed

Posted on by

This is an update post on blog identity; theological identity; and social media activity. I will post something in explanation of my theological identity in order to help explicate the way I see myself within the theological landscape. My blog name change reflects that identity very well.

Over time it has become more apparent to me where my theological orientation is actually situated; it isn’t, classically Reformed, if you hadn’t noticed. My theological impulses aren’t in line with Reformed orientation, per se; instead, they are oriented in and from what is called Radically Reformed in the history. In other words, my orientation, even while being “The Evangelical Calvinist” has always been Anabaptist[ic]. I approach Scripture in the same mode as Anabaptists historically have, which is what I take to be a consistent form of sola Scriptura. I have the same view of theological guilds, and Christian academia as an industrial complex, as Anabaptists historically have. I have the same view of baptism as an Anabaptist. I hold to low Free Church to state and state to church views, and I see the Bible as genuinely normative over against the so called Great Tradition of the Church. I am not ecclesiocentric, but radically Christocentric. I am credobaptist, and stridently contra paedobaptist; and most definitely against baptismal regeneration, whether that be of the ‘soft’ or ‘hard’ types. I am for a non-violence ethic, although not fully pacifist. But if you add all of the above together what you get is a ‘Radically Reformed’ or Anabaptist theological perspective, rather than a historically Reformed one. So, this signals where I’m coming from these days. I think the idea that I am ‘Calvinist’ in anyway doesn’t really follow; my co-edited books notwithstanding.

As far as Christian scholarship, I think that as an ‘evil’ it is necessary, but not something I am happy with. I do enjoy research, reading, writing so on and so forth for the sake of the Church. But there are too many pitfalls built into the theological guild, to the point that it is more harmful than helpful to those associated with it; in my view. I can no longer participate in that realm, at least online, and be a healthy growing Christian person. And so I repudiate that whole realm. Does this mean that I can’t benefit from Christian scholarship? No. All it means is that I can benefit from it without also being associated with it. I am not interested in being accepted by the guild or those in it. They are not special before God or in God’s Kingdom; not more so than anyone else. Yet, for some reason they seem to think they are indeed special in a way that other less-educated Christians aren’t. But all I have mostly experienced in that sphere is self-acclamation, self-promoting, gate-keeping attitudes that have nothing to do with the Kingdom of God in Christ. There are clearly people in that sphere who love Christ, and who believe that what they are doing is promoting God’s Kingdom. But I think the sphere itself has become so toxic, and driven by goals that are so self-glorifying that I want nothing to do with it. I have been patronized, belittled, ‘come at,’ so on and so forth merely for the fact that I don’t have a PhD; or that I don’t exactly fit into the sphere according to the sentimentalities and expectations that others have of you if you are going to be in-step with “them.” That is not me, nor has it ever been me. I am not open to any correction from anybody online, “period.” I could care less what some academic has to say or think about me, one way or the other. Like them I stand before God. Unlike them I don’t stand before my “peers.” I am simply a Christian attempting to live my life as a witness for Christ. This does not mean that there aren’t some Christian academics with the same aims. But what I am noting is that there is an inherent corrosive built into the complex of Christian academia. The very people who can ‘hear’ what I am writing, at the same time do not think this applies to them as academics; it might happen in certain realms, ‘but it could never happen to them.’

For me The Evangelical Calvinist project is over. I am happy to be have been able to collaborate with Myk Habets on the two books, but it isn’t my project anymore. I am not ‘Reformed,’ but Radically Reformed (from the historical trajectory that represents). Stuart Murray captures well the sentiment I am prone to when he writes of the Anabaptist trajectory and sentiment:

Anabaptists were seeking to be faithful to the Reformers’own principle of sola scriptura but were convinced that the Reformers were failing to implement it fully. Their approach was somewhat iconoclastic as they sought to topple theologians past and present from their pedestals; they appeared to be rather anti-intellectual as they questioned the efficacy of education and reason in hermeneutics; and they impugned the integrity of the Reformers, whom they regarded as putting their own interests above faithful obedience to Scripture. Whether their assertions were justified must be considered in the light of criticisms made of their position, but obviously their claims were substantive and a real challenge to the Reformers. Despite the sometimes naïve language, the Anabaptists’ claims were not just the slogans of enthusiasts. And, as their opponents were forced to concede, many Anabaptists lived out the implications of their approach.[1]

Murray clearly offers some critique even in his approval of the Anabaptist approach; and this is an important aspect of this for me as well. I am not uncritical of Anabaptism, nor am I fully on board with every last jot and tittle of Anabaptism. But if I am honest, on a grade, I am more Anabaptist in orientation that not. I think me openly recognizing this is just being more honest about things that I have been aware of in the past. Full disclosure: I was on the trajectory of recognizing all of this way back probably thirteen years ago. The Evangelical Calvinist project sort of arrested this for me, but it never went away; which would explain why Barth has always remained so important for me. I’d say Barth represents the mix of Radically Reformed that I most cohere with. He is a mix of various trajectories, but his desire to be ‘biblical’ and approach on a radical Christ-centeredness grounded in God’s free Grace, I think, fits very well with the Anabaptist trajectory in more ways than not. Barth, also, by the way, was not paedobaptist, but credobaptist; this is an important piece that needs to be appreciated. Baptism is a watershed (pun intended) between classically Reformed and radically Reformed; Barth fits the latter in more ways than one, I think.

So, there it is. My views will continue to develop, I’m sure, as the days go by. Hopefully all that this means is that I am growing deeper into the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ. This is how this all started for me, by the way. I was confronted with deep and long-lasting crisis back in 95, and that pushed me into the Bible in deep and unceasing ways. It is that crisis that has led to the development of my theological mood today, and it is a mood as I have just been describing. I am okay with not being accepted by the theological guild, and do not look for their approval but God’s. That’s it. Peace.

 

[1] Stuart Murray, Biblical Interpretation in the Anabaptist Tradition (Kitchener, Ontario: Pandora Press, 2000), 49-50.