Is The Moscow vs. Ogden Kerfuffle Really Less Theological Than Political?

https://www.thedailygenevan.com/blog/2025/1/3/paleoconservatism-and-christian-nationalism?fbclid=IwY2xjawHmrLRleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHb3EWNdEhbATkejp-zW4VBqNS3fqTkiy4qJ_h24vBS-EbQUk4W_vggniWA_aem_zJNuGIgKhILwy73x6IQDRQ

I strongly recommend the above link by my friend Darrell Dow. It is an excellent and succinct explanation of why Ogden is Battling Moscow. A Battle where the Moscow position is way more liberal than we would like while the Ogden position is not nearly as conservative as we would like.

For those of us who are not completely satisfied with either Ogden or Moscow we have to take what we can and try to support Ogden as much as we can without compromising our core principles. We do this realizing, as Joe Sobran once said, “I don’t have a dog in this fight. My dog died a long time ago.” There really is very little to support in the Moscow position.

Now at points I strongly disagree with some positions of those whom Dow is providing summary. On the other hand I agree with nearly everything that Dow says in his own analysis in this piece except for one important observation;

“With exceptions, the vituperativeness and anger directed at Wolfe and adjacent allies is less theological than political, less about principle than power. The attacks aren’t primarily about doctrinal distinctives (or memes) but a result of men protecting their brands and roles as self-appointed gatekeepers. In other words, it’s all very Buckleyesque. “

I am convinced that the rhubarb in this kerfuffle is indeed not less theological than political and oddly enough, Dow even later agrees with me as he explains the reasons for the break which at their core are all theological.

When you read the article you find Darrell laying out the differences between Ogden and Moscow, (Ogden and Moscow are shorthand … I realize there are more parties involved) and those differences when traced back to their beginning point are straight on theological. Because there are these theological differences there are in turn differences in the politics of each camp.

Darrell spends time noting the differences between Ogden and Moscow by telling us that Ogden in more inclined to hold on to the particulars while Moscow desires to hold on to the Universals. Another way of saying this is that Ogden (rightly I think) is responding with an offered correction to decades and decades (maybe even centuries … stemming back to the Enlightenment) of emphasizing the cosmopolitan and the unity of mankind, which Moscow is championing. This stems from the classically liberal worldview wherein the brotherhood of all men and the fatherhood of God over all men is emphasized. Now, Moscow, is not completely in the tank for that idea but what Moscow is doing is offering up a sanctified version of that world and life view and the chaps at Ogden are protesting in favor of particularity of peoples and nations. This difference can be captured by comparing the lyrics of a couple different songs,

“I believe in the Kingdom Come
Then all the colors will bleed into one
Bleed into one
But yes, I’m still running” U2

This represents the kind of Universalism that the Ogden chaps are opposing. They would prefer to sing along with “Show of Hands;”

“And we learn to be ashamed before we walk
Of the way we look, and the way we talk
Without our stories or our songs

How will we know where we come from?
I’ve lost St. George in the Union Jack
It’s my flag too and I want it back

Seed, bark, flower, fruit
Never gonna grow without their roots
Branch, stem, shoot
We need roots”

Again Moscow is not as WOKE as John Lennon singing “Imagine” but as I said they are trying to bequeath a Christianity that is mixed with this kind of Universalism. Likewise, Ogden is not based enough on this subject but it seems they are moving in a wholesome direction.

Now, back to the theological issue that is driving all this. The theological issue that is driving all this is the Christian doctrine of the One and the Many. Because there is a one and a many in the Creator there is a one and the many in creation. The accusation against Moscow (which I believe is true) is that they are emphasizing God’s oneness over His manyness to such an unhealthy extreme that we are losing particularity in creation, as seen in Doug Wilson’s constant sniping at “racism.” When God is seen as One to the neglect of Many the result is a creeping monism in creation where the particularity that is rightly found in “the Many” is lost.

Now, speaking only for myself, I see the Ogden chaps trying to understand the beauty of this Creator One and the Many as it incarnates itself into the created one and the many. I still think they are holding on too much to the One but it is a breath of fresh air to read some of the things they are saying.

So, we see the differences between Ogden and Moscow are theological before they are political and it is only because the differences are theological that the political division subsequently arises. Because there are differences in theological principles you have this contest over political power. The difference, contra Dow, are doctrinal before they are political. There will be no solving of the political fracture apart from a conversation of the theological issue of “The One and The Many.”

In the West we have lived a very long time neglecting the import of the One and the Many. The result has been egalitarianism, WOKEism, and Cultural Marxism. The Ogden boys are trying to speak to that.

Read the whole Dow piece and bring yourself up to speed on what is disturbing the “conservative” Church in America. Darrell does a bang up job in his article. I can’t recommend it highly enough.

Addendum

Elsewhere I have reduced all of this to this one paragraph;

“If Oswald Spengler was correct (and he is not) that ‘Christianity is the grandmother of Bolshevism’ then the contest going on right now between the Ogden / Wolfe chaps and Doug Wilson / James White is a contest between an older Christianity vs. a Spenglerian Christianity. Wilson/White/Boot/Sandlin and company, intentionally or not, desire a Christianity that is rootless, and cosmopolitan in its social order theory while being Capitalistic in its worse sense economically. They are practitioners of Enlightenment “Christianity” and they are doing their utmost to halt the return of a pre-Enlightenment Christianity where rootedness, family, and belonging are the signposts pointed at by the few who retain ecclesial sanity.”