Culture – Page 3

Converting By The Sword?

“You cannot FORCE someone to be a Christian. If you think you can force a nation to be a Christian Nation Then you are far more like Islam than Christianity.”

Mr. Blake Allen
X Post

I pause to deal with this because this kind of thing gets said repeatedly. Mr. Allen is just a mouthpiece here for an idea that is widely accepted.

However, I challenge the verity of this denial. I do think you can force a people/nation to be Christian. Of course it all depends on what one means by “be a Christian.” One certainly can force a people or nation to be Christian in the sense of forcing upon them Christian standards, law, and morals. Just as Communism was forced upon Europe in the 20th Century so Christianity could be forced upon people today. Another example is how Islam was forced on Christian peoples in the 8th century forward as it converted by the sword as it swept across formerly Christian lands. Eventually, most of those people as individuals gave up their Christianity in order to conform to the “Islam at the point of the sword” reality. Another example is how the Transcendentalist Yankees during the War of Northern Aggression forced their damnable religion on the South successfully during the era or Reconstruction and beyond. Examples abound of religion being successfully forced upon peoples.

Thus there is no reason to think that Christianity, in its objective sense, could not be forced on a people. Charlemagne accomplished this with pagan tribes in his time. Oliver Cromwell did it for a season in England.

Now, if one means by the above quote that one can’t force people into a living vital union with Christ… well, that is certainly true. However, it often is the case that the living vital union with Christ will follow a forced subjection of a people — even if that requires a couple generations. With the forced subjection to Christianity the ground is cleared of pagan religion resistance against Christianity being given a hearing by the former peoples, who, as a people, condemned Christ and Christianity.

So, it is true that one cannot force individuals to have vital and living union with Christ but it is decidedly not true that Christianity cannot be forced upon a people / nation by means of conquest.

The Religious Interrelationship Between Church, State, & Family In Every Social Order / Culture

“The magistrate promotes true religion even when the church is ‘silent.'”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe

This should be true, however if the Church remains silent for very long eventually the magistrate will not promote true religion. Equally, if magistrates do not promote true religion over a sustained period of time eventually neither will the Church.

The Church and State (and family) are three distinct but interdependent co-ordinate agencies and are the Jurisdictional authority centers in any given culture / social order. (Think three legged stool.) If any of these three institutions goes belly up and if the other two will not course correct for the third one that has gone bad, then the consequence will be that eventually all will go bad.

No culture /social order can last long that is divided against itself. Jesus Himself said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” As such a culture /social order, except in times of decided turmoil, will always be uniformly religious in their civil social life, their family life, and their church life. Apart from this reality the culture / social order will be in friction and turmoil.

Take these united States right now. Right now we are, speaking in general and not universal terms, a humanist people and that humanism is present in all of our civil Institutions, including and especially the Christian church. (Remember, exceptions exist.) Biblical Christian folks will not rise very high in our current Institutions because our current Institutions are agreed that Biblical Christianity cannot be allowed to rise to challenges the current Institutional non-Christian realities. If Biblical Christians do manage to climb somewhat in our current humanist Institutions they will reach a point where they will be silenced, or they will silence themselves realizing how dangerous it would be to speak out as a Biblical Christian.

I had this last point above brought out to me recently when attending an event with a large number of Christian clergy present. One of those clergy members who belonged to a Reformed “conservative” denominational structure pulled me aside and said quite encouragingly, “Don’t be discouraged. You’re not alone. There are many people out here who agree with you. You’re merely saying the things out loud that the rest of us are saying quietly.” Well, why are these chaps in the position of only being able to say what I say, “out loud” quietly? It is clearly because they know if they say what I say out loud they are going to be descended upon and be silenced by their “Reformed” “Conservative” denomination. So, they silently, from a distance cheer me on but dare not cheer too loudly or join in the contest too directly knowing the penalty that will be paid if they speak their mind without horns or teeth. Let me be clear here. As I said above, I found the chap who pulled me aside to be encouraging. I understand perfectly why he and many like him can only speak “quietly” what I am speaking loudly. I understand that people (clergy) have wives and children who are dependent upon them. I understand that people (clergy) may well decide that the cost is too high and it is better to wait a more opportune time to speak more loudly. I wish they would speak out with me but I understand why they don’t believe they can.

Cultures / Social Orders rise and fall together religiously. No culture / social order will last long divided against itself.

Addendum

By the way, this explains the whole R2K phenomenon. R2K realizes the above is true and so, seeking to operate in (and also perpetuate) the current humanist culture / social order it silences the voice of Christianity in the pulpit on matters that the prevailing humanist religion is insistent about. In such a way “Reformed” and “Conservative” Christianity can retain its form without having to stand for Christ. It can tell itself that it really is “Christian,” when in point of fact it is merely emptying historic Reformed and conservative Christianity of its content as the Dangeld payment given up in order to be allowed to function in a humanist culture.

John Locke’s Vision Of Religious Tolerance … McAtee’s Exposure Of Locke’s Error

“Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of toleration. As for other practical opinions, though not absolutely free from all error, if they do not tend to establish domination over others, or civil impunity to the Church in which they are taught, there can be no reason why they should not be tolerated.”

John Locke

A Letter Concerning Toleration

I think what we find above is what today is embraced by many who styles themselves as advocates of “Principled Pluralism.”

1.) These types of chaps are all for toleration and pluralism of religions in one social order as long as it principled and so reasonable. However, the minute one advocates for “principled pluralism,” and a “reasonable toleration,” one has rejected a pluralism that could include a religion that insists “Thou Shall Have No Other Gods Before Me,” for a religion that insists, “Thou Shall Have Other Gods Along With Me.” You see, the God of the Bible does not allow for “reasonable tolerance,” or for “principled pluralism,” because a reasonable tolerance does not allow for His intolerance and a principled pluralism does not have enough plurality in it to allow for a God who allows no plurality.

2.) Locke denies toleration to those who tolerate the denial of the being of God. Subsequently, Locke affirms that the public square can be flooded with all the gods of all those who affirm the being of God. Only atheists it seems, need not apply. The problem here is that the position of allowing all the gods in the public square is not a great deal different than allowing none of the gods in the public square. If all the gods are in then no God is really God and so the State is the only entity left who must decide how far any one of these different gods are allowed to go in the public square. In essence Locke’s position makes the state the God over the gods.

3.) Locke forbad the atheist from creating a system that forbad all religion but he ended up creating a system that likewise forbad all religion except the religion that had the State as its head, determining how far any one god or god could or could not go in the public square. This is where Locke’s system eventually led. Locke’s principled pluralism finally did what he feared the atheist would do … Locke’s principled pluralism destroyed all religion save the religion that announces that “in the state we live and move and have our being.” We live in the condition that Locked feared … “all is dissolved.”

4.) Locke, like many today, did not understand that religion is an inescapable category wherein one and only one religion must dominate. The religion that Locke bequeathed to us, through our Founders, is a religion wherein the God of the Bible is not allowed to be the sole God over the public square. Instead, Locked bequeathed to us a system where the State, acting as the god over all the gods in the tolerant public square, determines what is and is not allowed in terms of morality, religion, and law.

5.) It is true that the atheist can “have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of toleration,” but what Locke didn’t also see as true is that the principled pluralist can “have no pretence because of his tolerance principle whereupon to challenge the privilege of any god, from Allah to the Talmudist Demon God to Buddha to the Flying Spaghetti Monster God, to the God of the Mormons (much the same as the previous one mentioned) the privilege of toleration.” If all the gods are welcomed in then none of the gods are welcomed in. If all the gods are welcomed in then the state must be the GOD who rules over all the gods.

6.) In the last clause Locke basically says other religions can be allowed in a social order as long as they mind their own business. The problem here is that it is the very nature of religion to establish domination over others and so Locke is saying… “As long as other religions do not do what religions do they can be tolerated here.” That doesn’t strike me as a very good principle by which to support principled pluralism.

Principled pluralism was not a good principle even when the whole nation was still largely a nation consisting of squabbling protestant denominations (with Maryland as Roman Catholic and Rhode Island as Anabaptist) each seeking hegemony (Rhode Island finally won). It’s even a worse principle today when the whole “nation” consists of squabbling religions, the chief of which is the religion of no religion — those who call themselves “atheists,” or “no-religion.”

The Principled pluralism of Locke wanted a nation that allowed for tolerance and the presence of sundry expressions of Christianity. What it eventually birthed was a nation that has the presence of sundry religions with no tolerance for the one true religion of Christianity.

Top Down, Bottom Up, or Inside Out?

Is the Christianization of America more likely to happen from a Spirit-wrought revival of the populace that seems to arise from nowhere? Or from a Christian prince who seems to pop up from nowhere and uses political power to impose his views on the people? Or is some third option most likely?

Rev. Rich Lusk
Question Raised on X

Just to be clear from the outset here. While I do think that Rev. Lusk can be quite insightful from time to time on the whole, since he is one of the worst practitioners of what is now known as “Federal Vision,” I consider him at the very best heterodox and at very his very worse heretical.

However, he asks a good question here that has been bandied about a good bit by folks lately so I thought I would weigh in on the matter.

If we could reduce the question to its essence it amounts to this;

“Will Christian renewal/reformation be top down or bottom up?”

My answer to this question finds me ripping off from the black Marxist Van Jones who was Obama’s Green Jobs Czar at one time. Van Jones likes to talk about “change being top dow, bottom up and inside out.” And honestly, this is a maxim that has been pursued by Marxists for generations — often quite successfully. It’s also been pursued by Christians in history as well. In point of fact I would argue that it is a biblical principle.

So, my answer to Lusk’s query is that it must be all at the same time. At various times I suppose one will lead and the other follow but on the whole I look at history and I see all three happening whenever a nation pivots from its previous historical/theological/worldview antecedents.

I see it, for example, in a book I finished last month on the Spanish Civil War. Both the Nationalists and the “Republicans” were fighting for a renewal/reformation for their nation as understood as coming from their different beginning points. Both sought top down solutions. The Roman Catholic Nationalists had their Franco and others. The Republicans had their Francisco Largo Caballero and others. However, both parties also sought the support of a bottom up constituency and they both fought for hearts and minds (the inside out component).

If you want to go behind that to consider how Charlemagne would use the sword to convert tribes in his orbit of rule one sees again the top down approach being married to a bottom up approach. After these pagan tribes were “converted” Christian missionaries would then swarm over them to knead Christianity into the individual lives of those previously pagan but now, because of Charlemagne’s sword, Christian tribes.

If one reads their Old Testament Scriptures one finds that both Reformation and Deformation come and go with the coming and going of Righteous or Un-Righteous Kings leading the way. The OT Scriptures indeed seem to support more the idea that Reformation and Deformation come from a top down matrix.

Part of the problem behind people accepting that Reformation could come down in a force manner as being led by a Christian Prince is the fact that the American mind is so infected with the Democratic mindset. We want to insist that Reformation will only come as a bottom up “Spirit led” revival. Certainly, with God all things are possible, but consider that God marries means to ends and currently the means that would lead to an end of a “Spirit led” revival are not present. There is very little proclamation of the whole counsel of God in pulpits today in even putative conservative churches. The enemy has completely captured the places where the most intense catechism occurs; the Government schools and the Universities, as well the media industry (entertainment and “news”) as well as most of the Churches in the West today. Then there is the fact that the publishing houses are almost all captured territory as well as the gaming industry. In light of that could bottom up Spirit led revival still happen? Sure … because God is sovereign all things are possible. However, when we look at history, history suggests that a bottom up Spirit led revival is not going to happen apart from a movement that is also top down and inside out.

And most pietistic Christians don’t want to hear that. They would prefer to think that God always works His ends without means that He Himself has raised up. A Christian magistrate has often been the top down means God uses to prompt bottom up Spirit led revival.

Machen Was Right In 1935…. And He is Even More Right Today

“America has been no exception to this decadence (experienced by Europe since the end of WW I). Liberty is being threatened and, there is coming before us in the near future, the specter of the hopeless treadmill of a collectivist state.

Certainly when we take the world as a whole, we are obliged to see that the foundations of liberty and honesty are being destroyed, and the slow achievements of centuries are being thrown recklessly away.

In such a time of kaleidoscopic changes, is there anything that remains unchanged? When so many things have proved to be untrustworthy, is there anything that we can trust?

One point is at least clear – we cannot trust the Church. The visible Church, the church as it now actually exists upon this earth has fallen too often into error and sin.”

J. Gresham Machen
The Christian View Of Man
Published 1936

Matters were very bad in Machen’s time. However 90 years later the fruit of the theology that Machen was witnessing is now being harvested by the tractor-trailer loads. Most of us would rightly think that it would be an incredible blessing to only have to deal with the error and sin that Machen was dealing with in 1936. Yet, Machen was not in error here. He lived to see the beginning rot and of understanding where it was going. Because he had that kind of prophetic insight to understand “ideas have consequences” he was hated like very few men of his time. Such is a prophet’s reward.

Machen’s observation remains sadly true. We cannot trust the visible Church… especially those church denominations that were once touted as “conservative.” Conservative denominations no longer exist. There may be conservative… (better to say Dissident) Christian congregations exist but denominationally there is nowhere to place one’s trust.

Machen though, was not only right about the Church of his era he was correct about the collectivist government that was descending upon Americans. He lived through the Wilson administration and while most Americans don’t know their history, the Wilson administration was a time of the great restraining of liberty in the US. Things had been relaxed somewhat in the intervening 17 years between the end of the Wilson administration and the time of Machen’s writing this but there is no doubt he could begin to see what was bubbling up around him. FDR had come to power and had introduced the alphabet soup legislation which was all about ushering in a collectivist state. Machen was no fool. He could read the times. Others writing about the same time, such as Christopher Dawson, were saying similar things to what Machen is saying here.

The world changed during these men’s lifetime. World War I had ended old Christendom and they were insightful enough to know that massive change had settled upon them.

We now live in the continued stream of that change. We have gone, since the time of Machen, from Revolution to Revolution as pursued incrementally. Because we live in that incremental Revolutionary change most people don’t notice it. Some do and some see that the foundations were long ago destroyed. The message today is not “the end is coming.” The message today is, “the end has come and we have to reverse and rebuild.”

And as Machen notes above… the Church will be that Institution that will provide the most opposition to re-fashioning a new Christendom. It already is proving that all the time.