R2K Analysis Of The State Of Christian Nationalism Is Splintered — Part II

Here we finish up dissecting Rev. Chris Gordon’s offerings on the reason why the Christian Nationalism/postmillennialism project as failed.  Keep in mind, as I said in part I that the failure of CN/post-mil is very convenient for Gordon and the militant R2K/Amil guys because if were to be the case that CN/post-mill were not true then God would be found to be a liar and more importantly the field would be clear for the militant R2K/Amil guys to continue with their defeatist, sentimentalist, and pietistic surrender theology.

One point to clarify. Someone wrote me and asked how I could conjoin the words “militant” and “R2K Amillennialism” since R2K amillennialism is characterized by their call to not contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. The militancy of the R2K Amillennialism movement is found in the one place that they are resolved to man the ramparts and fight to the death and that one place they are tenaciously and militantly fighting is against all forms of optimistic eschatology. The one thing that will put spine in the R2K surrender monkeys — the one thing that will make them see red — is the presence of optimistic theology anywhere near them. It is their fight against CN/postmillennialism wherein one finds their militancy.

Now on to polishing off Gordon’s “reasoning,” as to why the CN/postmil movement has failed;

CG writes,

4. The current movement is too driven by big name personalities that shape tribal identities. 

Bret responds,

Does Chris here mean names like D. G. Hart, David Van Drunen, R. Scott Clark, Michael Horton, and J. V. Fesko? Ooops… never mind … I got my “current movements as driven by big name personalities” mixed up.

Look, all people have those they look up to and respect and admire. Personally, I learned decades ago that it is best that these people should be the sainted dead and not those still drawing breath since those still living will consistently fall off their pedestals. However, I am not going to over-fault people for having leaders for whom would go to the wall. If anything we need more men to admire, even if that means we have to deal with the problem of tribal identities.

Having said all that, I hate to admit it, but I think Gordon is on to something here. We have too often devolved into arguing about “who’s right,” instead of which expression of CN/post-mill is most consistent with Scripture. Having conceded that though, R2K militants like CG need to realize that there are very real differences between many of these camps that inevitably are going to need hashed out and in that process disagreements are going to rise. I mean, when your messages is just “surrender” such as if found in Gordon’s R2K/militant Amil camp it is easy for the followers of all the various personalities to find sweet concord.

But Chris should be able to sleep better at night knowing that not all of us have pushed our chips in on any one of the individuals in the CN/post-mill camp. There are those of us who are CN/Post-mills who are definitely not groupies.

When it comes to Gordon’s issue of fighting, well, let’s just quote another fighter, J. Gresham Machen;

“The type of religion which rejoices in the pious sound of traditional phrases, regardless of their meanings, or shrinks from “controversial” matters, will never stand amid the shocks of life. In the sphere of religion, as in other spheres, the things about which men are agreed are apt to be the things that are least worth holding; the really important things are the things about which men will fight.”

CG writes,

5. The current movement hasn’t shown us what it means to love our enemy and take the gospel to them in concern for their salvation.

Bret responds,

This is just libel. Pure unadulterated slander.

1.) I may have my disagreements with any number of CN/post-mill types but to suggest that the movement has a whole hasn’t taken the gospel to the enemies of the cross is just balderdash.  Wilson, Wolfe, Isker, Conn, and the Heritage Theonomists may disagree among themselves on important matters but they all stand shoulder to shoulder loving their enemy and having a concern for their enemy’s salvation.

2.) I suspect the problem here is the definition of “love.” When I see Christians protesting an abortion clinic I see them loving their enemies. When i see Christians pointing out the Cultural Marxism found in any number of pulpits I see them loving their enemies. When I spend my time overturning the idiocy that is R2K I am loving my enemies and the enemies of the exhaustive Lordship of Jesus Christ. However, I suspect that for CG loving one’s enemies only means something like working in a soup kitchen, or taking a mission trip to Haiti to dig a well or build a school. Those things need to be done but they do not delimit the definition of “loving one’s enemies,” or “taking salvation” to them.

3.) CG falls into the error of thinking that just as Christ came to die for the sins of the world, his followers are likewise called to die for the sins of the world. It is true that the Lord Christ had no aim to become a political hero but then that wasn’t His mission. To suggest that somehow politics should not be redeemed for God’s glory because Jesus didn’t try to become a political hero is a category mistake of monumental consequence. Jesus didn’t become a husband and father Chris. Does that mean we shouldn’t become a husband and father either so as to follow Jesus?

4.) Finally,  CG’s protestations to the contrary  it can be biblically supported that Christians are to have political power. Why is it that the R2K types automatically assume that Christianity can never exercise power consistent with the authority of their great High King? The biblical support for Christians having political power is the promised success of the missionary effort. Once the nations are evangelized then obviously that evangelized nation is going to rule consistent with the Word of God.

But you see here, this is where the rub comes in. R2K/amil types do not believe that the Holy Spirit will be successful in converting the nations before Christ’s return and therefore balk strongly at the notion of Christian wielding political power.

5.) With this complaint by CG there is a good deal of Jesus Juking going on. By that I mean there is an appeal to emotion in order to try and guilt people into realizing their lack of the requisite sentimentalism and piety in order shame people into agreeing with them. No Jesus Juking allowed on Iron Ink.

CG writes,

6. The current movement has focused our hearts on saving the earthly city, which is promised to be burned (2 Pet. 3).

Bret Responds,

More Jesus Juking. Readers are supposed to feel guilty because our hearts are not focused on the things that the phony Jesus of R2K is focused on.

1.) One pauses to wonder if Christians are not to be about saving the earthly city via evangelism and extending the crown rights of Jesus Christ into every area of life, while at the same time realizing that in this world we have no continuing city then what is the alternative? It seems that the only alternative for R2K is that Christians should focus their hearts on destroying the earthly city. Wait … I guess Christians could also be neutral. But “no”, we all know that neutrality is impossible.

2.) One has to realize that in this whole critique that Gordon offers, Gordon is operating according to his own assumptions of what Christianity is and isn’t. But that’s just the point between R2K/Amil and the CN/Post-mil contest. You see Chris we don’t share your assumptions about what Christianity is and is not and therefore your critiques are so much fiddle faddle. It’s just your opinion Bro. And not a very good one at that.

3.) Our Puritan ancestors certainly were able to focus on the “earthly city” while also keeping an eye toward the heavenly. I don’t know why the R2K crowd feels these are mutually exclusive;

CG writes,

7. The current movement has made us unprepared for the second coming, as it advances that Jesus cannot return until all the nations are all Christianized.

Bret responds,

It is the teaching of Scripture that Jesus does not return until all His enemies are placed under His feet. Any complaint here CG needs to take up with God’s Revelation.

Jesus taught that only the Father knows the day and hour of His return but until then we are to occupy till He comes. Can R2K really argue that they are busy about “occupying till He comes?”

Quite to the contrary of Gordon’s accusation I think it is R2K/militant A-mil that disorients believers and robs them of their hope.  R2K disorients believers by suggesting that there are some areas where Christ does not explicitly rule. It disorients believers by suggesting that, in the words of John MacArthur, “we lose down here.” It disorients believers by muting pulpits from speaking a “thus saith the Lord,” in economics, education, rearing of children, etc. etc. etc. R2K is fire insurance salvation complete with sweet sickly pietism.

R2K robs of Christians of the hope of seeing their magnificent and full of splendor King being glorified in every area of life. The only hope that R2K holds out to the Christian is their death. R2K offers no hope of Kingdom building for the glory of Christ. R2K robs the Christian the hope of a muscular Christianity that makes the influence of Christ known in every area of life.

As I have said countless times in the past, R2K is a different Christianity then the Christianity that one finds between the pages of Holy Writ and a different Christianity then the Christianity found in Reformed Church History.

I sincerely hope, with all my being, that Chris Gordon keeps writing this kind of material because with each article written R2K is exposed for the fraud Christianity it is. I hope with all my might that Chris continues to interview the CN/post-mill types on his ABG podcast because with each interview he is having his R2K head handed to him. The more he talks the more R2K is discredited.

And I thank God in Christ for that.