If you search engine “The Gospel Coalition Cult Christian Trumpism,” you will find what I am responding to here. This is part II which examines Michael’s reasons for his assessment on the rise of Christian Trumpism. I’m not linking TGC to my site because I don’t want to increase their traffic. The points below speak to the article in question starting with Michael’s reasons and follow the flow of the article from that point forward — generally speaking.
Michael’s three points for the rise of Christian Trumpism are;
1.) Christian Americanism
2.) End-Times Conspiracy
3.) Prosperity Gospel
Michael writes on #1
Christian Americanism is the narrative that God specially called the United States into being as an extraordinary—verging on miraculous—providence. Passages from the election of Israel in the old covenant are lifted out of context and applied to America.
BLM responds,
First, I should offer that I do not buy into the whole notion of American exceptionalism or the American Manifest Destiny. When I read US History I find chapters and chapters that are necessary to weep over. However, the chapters I weep over are the chapters that the Left tends to exult over (The War Between The States, entry into WW I, WW II, Yalta, The Civil Rights Movement, etc.), and the chapters I exult over the Left gnashes their teeth over (The Southern Confederacy, The 1924 Immigration Act, Freedom of Association, Sen. Joseph McCarthy, etc.). Because, as a Christian, I read history different than those of the “Christian Americanism” stripe there is a sense that I will agree with Michael here. However, as a Christian, I also read American history differently than Michael and his happy band of R2K Pilgrims read history and so there is also a sense in which I will vociferously disagree with the man.
However, having said that I still believe that God specially called these united States into being by an extraordinary providence — yes, even verging on a “remarkable providence” footing. (The Puritans preferred “remarkable providence” over “miraculous” since they believe that miraculous was a word saved for what happened in the Scripture.) Any dedicated reading to the founding of America forward demonstrates repeated remarkable providences in the formation of this country.
Now as to Michael’s disagreement with the idea of passages from the OT taken out of context and applied to America by our forefathers we must have a few words. First, let’s just admit that this is a hermeneutical disagreement and that Michael does not have the high ground here. Plenty of European Christians handled the idea of covenant in relation to their nation the same way America’s founders handled the idea of covenant. We could start with those who created and signed the Solemn League and Covenant. We could mention the Boers as they settled what we now know as South Africa. We could mention Oliver Cromwell and his Roundheads. Actually, Michael refusing to see an application of the Covenant to a Nation is a feature in Michael’s R2K “theology,” and so the sine of this move is hardly as obvious as Michael wants to suggest it is.
Second, we need to keep before us that Michael’s “theology” does not allow him to even consider the possibility of any nation being a Christian Nation. Michael’s R2K “theology” rules that category out of bounds as a beginning presupposition. So, given that fact, it’s not surprising that Michael whines about applying Scriptural covenantal categories to any nation. Because of this reality, we are not surprised by Michael’s hand-wringing over this.
2.) Michael then tells us that he believes that the better lights of the founding Fathers were the reputed non-Sectarians. Michael will surely allow me to see Patrick Henry as preferable to his James Madison. We have noted numerous times on this blog that non-sectarianism is a myth and so I won’t take the time to refute that silly notion once again.
3.) As noted earlier Michael’s R2K does not allow him to speak of a ‘holy nation.’ We must understand that is completely sui generis to R2K, and their fellow travelers the Anabaptists, Lutherans, and Libertarians like Roger Williams. It is not a historically Reformed position and frankly, I resent Horton and the R2K Pilgrims constantly insisting that this idiotic position is the Reformed de rigueur position. Clearly, it is possible for nations to be covenanted and so be set apart as uniquely belonging to God. Indeed, as God is sovereign over all and has entrusted Kingship to His Lord Christ it is the case that all nations as being owned by Christ must take plights of allegiance to the Lord Christ lest He be angry and those nations perish in the way.
4.) Nothing that is said in #3 contradicts the reality and the role of the Church that Michael sets forth in his article as untrue. I would only insist that God’s Kingdom consists of those individuals gathered in their nations around “the lamb who was slain,” and that God has “ransomed peoples for God from every tribe and language and people and nation” in their tribes, languages, peoples, and nations to be a kingdom and priests to our God.
5.) Michael next, once again, reduces Christianity to his narrow definition of the Gospel. I have no problem saluting his narrow definition of the Gospel. However, it is definitely the case that Michael has a problem with a definition of Christianity that is totalistic in scope. Christianity certainly offers the good news not only of Justification as found in the Lord Jesus Christ freely given to the elect but Christianity also confers, by the working of the Holy Spirit in redeemed men, an ever-increasing becoming of what they have been freely declared to be in Christ. This means that men, by God’s grace alone, increasingly conform to the image of God’s dear Son. This sanctification means man goes from Christlikeness to Christlikeness and this Christlikeness is measured by walking in terms of God’s authoritative Law Word (see Heidelberg Catechism Q. 91). This means that there is good news in the reality that Christianity, like salt and light, preserves and improves man and all the Institutions, Disciplines, and reality that redeemed man touches. Holy men, in sufficient numbers, will create holy families, holy education, holy law, and yes, even holy nations.
6.) Michael then offers,
Yet in scrambling for political privilege, the church loses confidence in the Spirit’s power working through this gospel and communicates to the world that it requires worldly supports for its success.
I’ll let Calvin’s sermon from I Samuel 8 repudiate Michael here,
“The Lord does not give Kings the right to use their power to subject the people to tyranny. Indeed when Liberty to resist tyranny seems to be taken away by princes who have taken over, one can justly ask this question; since kings and princes are bound by covenant to the people, to administer law in truest equality, sincerity and integrity; if they break faith and usurp tyrannical power by which they allow themselves everything they want: is it not possible for the people to consider together taking measures in order to remedy the evil?”
Was Calvin communicating to the world that he was looking to the world for worldly success in his admonishment for people to consider taking measures in order to remedy magistrate evil, the result of which would certainly mean political privilege for Calvinists?
Clearly, Michael Horton’s “theology” that protests Christian Americanism must be rejected just as much as the idea of American Exceptionalism or Manifest Destiny must be rejected.
7.) Next, Michael tees up his objections to End Times Conspiracy. I don’t have much disagreement here though I do discover a rich vein of irony when Michael complains about how End Times Conspiracists had a “biblical prophecy (that) was a Manichean dualism between “the planet Earth” and “Heaven.” The irony is found in a dualist complaining about other people’s dualism. Horton and his merry Pilgrim R2K acolytes have a “theology” that is besotted with dualisms. Indeed, one of their prophets even calls the R2K life the “hyphenated life.” It is true that Michael doesn’t draw a dualism between heaven and earth the way the Dispies he complains of do, but it is also true that Michael has a dualism between what he calls “the Common Kingdom,” and “the Grace Kingdom.” These dualisms of R2K are most grossly expressed in R2K dualisms of Natural law vs. God’s Law and Common Realm vs. Grace Realm.
8.) Oh, and Michael… I far more prefer the John Birch society than to your Democratic party.
9.) I completely agree with Horton on the Prosperity Gospel issue, though I must note that Michael’s R2K uber-pessimistic amillennialism is bound to itch more over the Gospel having success than what you’ll find in Biblical Christians who own a biblical eschatology. I also will add here that nobody (not even Michael) rolls his eyes more over the like of Eric Metaxes, Hal Lindsey, Jim & Tammy Baker, the Crouch’s, etc. One doesn’t have to be an R2K nutcase to find these other nutcases to be disturbing.
10.) Michael ends by writing;
“Blend these three ingredients––with a generous dose of hucksterism, self-promotion, and personality cult—and it’s not surprising that we have the cult of Christian Trumpism. Though it has nothing to do with serious politics or serious Christianity, it’s the culmination of many decades of exploiting both. And the end result is a dangerous enthusiasm that opposes both.“
Much the same could be written of R2k “theology.” There is plenty of hucksterism, self-promotion and personality cult in R2k. Doubt me? Just try disagreeing with R. Scott Clark. Doubt me? Just attend a PCRT conference. Doubt me? Just attend an R2K church for a month and see all the self-promotion of R2K.
As far as I’m concerned R2K and Christian Trumpism deserve one another. One can only hope that God will clear them both from our sight.
