Stephen Wolfe really has no stable answers when it comes to “Christian Nationalism,” though his unstable answers are better than the R2K unstable answers.
__
“If the ‘gospel is political,’ and the gospel is the basis of any civil policy, then you’re enacting a species of ‘church establishment,’ because you’re using public funds for an exclusively Christian political end.”
Stephen Wolfe
X
X
Bret responds,
This continues to assume public square neutrality, as if civil policy can somehow avoid being driven by theological or religious consideration.
·
The Gospel, narrowly speaking, is not political. Narrowly speaking, the Gospel is the pronouncement that there is no other name under heaven by which men must be saved. It is the heralding that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not reckoning people’s sins against them,
However, Christianity as a whole, clearly is political as are all religions without exception. All religions serve as the basis of all civil policy. No exceptions. This includes Christianity. All public funds are used to serve the ends of some particular religion. This is an inescapable truth. So, I have no problem with using public funds for an exclusively Christian political end. I don’t think that is a bad thing. In point of fact, I think that is a good thing.
Also, I would continue to insist that because neutrality is a myth therefore all Governments do work to the end of effecting an establishment, not of a church, but of a religion. Religion establishment is another inescapable concept. All Governments do the work of establishing a particular religion. Wolfe, and others, continue to think they can avoid that, but they cannot.
The sort of secularist, Unitarian-Masonic liberal theocracy that was set up in America reminds me of this broad-mindedly ecumenical system of the 3rd century AD Roman emperor Severus Alexander:
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Historia_Augusta/Severus_Alexander/2*.html
“29 1 Before I tell of his wars and his campaigns and his victories, I will relate a few details of his private every-day life. 2 His manner of living was as follows: First of all, if it were permissible, that is to say, if he had not lain with his wife, in the early morning hours he would worship in the sanctuary of his Lares, in which he kept statues of the deified emperors — of whom, however, only the best had been selected — and also of certain holy souls, among them Apollonius,116 and, according to a contemporary writer, Christ, Abraham, Orpheus, and others of this same character and, besides, the portraits of his ancestors.117 3 If this act of worship were not possible, he would ride about, or fish, or walk, or hunt, according to the character of the place in which he was.”
And some Young-Hegelian infidels actually found this example worth following:
https://archive.org/details/voicesofthechurc00bearuoft/page/n63/mode/2up?view=theater
““Criticism places Jesus in the category of individuals endowed with, high faculties, whose vocation in the different walks of life is to raise the development of the spirit to superior degrees; individuals whom we ordinarily designate by the title of geniuses, in the branches of knowledge that are not religious, and particularly in those of art and science. This is not, it is true, to replace Christ in what, strictly speaking, is the Christian sanctuary: it is merely to place him in the chapel of Alexander Severus, by the side of Orpheus and Homer; where he finds himself not only near Moses, but Mahomet also; and where he ought not to disdain the company of Alexander and of Caesar, of Raphael and Mozart.”*
It is not easy to write these things down with that coolness which is demanded, whilst we are endeavouring to give a true and impartial account of Strauss’s opinions.”
“Wherever your source of authority is, that is the god of the system.” – (RJR)
If what you are saying is true, and it is, then anything that isn’t explicitly Christian, is a national violation of the first commencement. So why is the spokesperson for “Christian Nationalism” advocating for the rival gods of polytheism? Answer… because he just doesn’t understand. And he is not a dummy, so it must therefore be a willful act. Either he is a cucked coward or he is a spiritual rebel clinging to his autonomy lest the clear light of “thus saith the Lord” break through and expose the vanity of his thinking.
20Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
5Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
Stephen… surrender your intellectual autonomy lest the light which is in you becomes darkness.
https://winstonmccuen.substack.com/p/christian-government-christian-law