Commenting on Dr. Wolfe’s Comments on the Whole Ogden Affair II

Wolfe defines Liberalism as the belief that nations do not exist but are only abstractions and as such anybody and everybody can be changeable cogs in belonging to any nation they like. Wolfe rightly notes that Liberalism gives up particularity for the sake of universals. On this score I agree with Wolfe and so would have R. J. Rushdoony, though modern theonomists (being Libertarians) might well disagree w/ Wolfe and Rushdoony. Some of Rushdoony’s lectures on the subject of Libertarianism are found when Rush deals with Max Stirner, a contemporary of Marx. Those lectures reveal that Rushdoony was no Libertarian unlike some who have come after him. I only note this because Theonomy/Reconstructionism has, in the past, also been accused of forsaking particularity by some in the Wolfean 2K camp. That accusation is errant.

I think this is a key point. What both Wolfe and I are arguing for is a social order that recognizes particularity. What we are fighting against is a theology / ideology that says all particularity is a social construct.

However, I think Wolfe is inconsistent on this point when he elsewhere intimates that particularity of culture and place does not necessarily mean particularity in marriage. Wolfe does contradict himself when he talks about the importance of particularity and then turns around and says that inter-racial marriages can be acceptable. Where now your particularity Dr. Wolfe? Where now your affirmation that common bonds are good?

During his podcast Wolfe has the same counsel for the Church as R2K does. The minister is to preach a very circumscribed Christianity and is to distribute the sacraments. The clergy is to stick w/ this very narrowly confined “grace realm,” and is not to speak on Politics, economics, history, arts, etc. because those realities belong to the nature realm and the two realms, per Wolfe, should only be mixed when his 2K version allows the two to be mixed a little.

Wolfe also has the incipient problem where members of a church can go do politics without a “thus saith the Lord” from the pulpit on what constitutes Biblical politics. As such, it is entirely possible and even likely that some members of the same church will go do abortion politics while others will do pro life politics. Who is going to correct the pro-death church members? No one, since the Church can’t speak to politics. This is the same problem that R2K has.

Wolfe is in error when he suggest that it is possible for any government to be non-establishment. Establishment is a inescapable concept. It is never if establishment. It is only what religion is going to be established. Now, the establishment of religion by the State might look different in different settings but all States have a established religion. The established religion of these united States is Humanism, sometimes euphemistically referred to as “principled pluralism,” and we support it with forced tax dollars. Of course principled pluralism cannot exist without political polytheism.

Wolfe is correct when he argues that R2K (he errantly calls it Modern 2K) has the theology it has in order to arrive at and support modern liberalism (Enlightenment Liberalism). Wolfe rightly notes that R2K reverse engineers its theology. It starts where it wants to end politically and then it jerry-rigs its theology in order to arrive at that a-priori conclusion. I have been saying this for decades.

Indeed, this observation is the backbone of Wolfe’s threat to the modern church and here we find some linkage with theonomy/reconstruction. Both Theonomy/Reconstruction and Wolfean 2K wants to snuff the life out of classical liberalism as a Christian world and life view. (OK, so the 2nd and 3rd generation of Theonomists were admittedly as bad as the R2K guys in supporting Enlightenment Liberalism. Guys like North, and Sandlin have been just terrible in their refashioning Theonomy into the image of Libertarianism.) Both classical theonomy/reconstruction and Wolfean 2K desire an end to political polytheism and the idea that nations are merely abstractions or social constructs with no real reality.

Wolfe’s podcast was sold as a response to the Ogden affair. He only spent 4 minutes saying he had no tuck with Nazism and that being an American there was plenty of American historicism that we Americans could reach for to guide us so that nobody needed to reach for National Socialist principles. Finally, he said he would be back at Ogden to speak for next years conference.

I agree with Wolfe that we don’t need to reach for the collectivism that was German National Socialism. The model we have of a Christian Republic where there is unity in a limited diversity will serve us just fine.

Author: jetbrane

I am a Pastor of a small Church in Mid-Michigan who delights in my family, my congregation and my calling. I am postmillennial in my eschatology. Paedo-Calvinist Covenantal in my Christianity Reformed in my Soteriology Presuppositional in my apologetics Familialist in my family theology Agrarian in my regional community social order belief Christianity creates culture and so Christendom in my national social order belief Mythic-Poetic / Grammatical Historical in my Hermeneutic Pre-modern, Medieval, & Feudal before Enlightenment, modernity, & postmodern Reconstructionist / Theonomic in my Worldview One part paleo-conservative / one part micro Libertarian in my politics Systematic and Biblical theology need one another but Systematics has pride of place Some of my favorite authors, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Tolkien, Chesterton, Nock, Tozer, Dabney, Bavinck, Wodehouse, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Schaeffer, C. Van Til, H. Van Til, G. H. Clark, C. Dawson, H. Berman, R. Nash, C. G. Singer, R. Kipling, G. North, J. Edwards, S. Foote, F. Hayek, O. Guiness, J. Witte, M. Rothbard, Clyde Wilson, Mencken, Lasch, Postman, Gatto, T. Boston, Thomas Brooks, Terry Brooks, C. Hodge, J. Calhoun, Llyod-Jones, T. Sowell, A. McClaren, M. Muggeridge, C. F. H. Henry, F. Swarz, M. Henry, G. Marten, P. Schaff, T. S. Elliott, K. Van Hoozer, K. Gentry, etc. My passion is to write in such a way that the Lord Christ might be pleased. It is my hope that people will be challenged to reconsider what are considered the givens of the current culture. Your biggest help to me dear reader will be to often remind me that God is Sovereign and that all that is, is because it pleases him.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *