CREC Libertarian Pastors Who Insist They Are Theonomists; Sumpter & Wilson

“Tucker Carlson says that there is no Nicene Creed of capitalism, and that’s true enough, but there is a Nicene Creed that says that God is the ‘Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible….’ Invisible things would include market forces, the creativity and ingenuity of men, as well as their created needs and desires. Until or unless God gives a government the authority to step in, it is a violation of the Nicene Creed to grasp power for yourself and violently and coercively prohibit the free actions and creativity of people made in the image of God.”

Rev. Toby Sumpter

1.) Has anybody in all of Church history since the Nicene Creed was developed ever used the Nicene Creed to prove that Capitalism (particularly the Corporatism Capitalism that we are currently living under) is God’s preferred economic order? Honestly, this is such a stretch I can’t believe that people don’t die of embarrassment just reading it. Let me guess… the Council of Chalcedon also proves that minimum wage laws are unbiblical.

Look, I’m a Biblical Capitalist (as opposed to the Crony Capitalism we now have) but I would never try to use the Nicene Creed to support my position.

2.) Technically market forces are not invisible. Market forces are very visible inasmuch as they are merely the decisions made by very visible people.

3.) “It is a violation of the Nicene Creed (by the Government) to grasp power for yourself and violently and coercively prohibit the free actions and creativity of people made in the image of God?” Really? If Sumpter is correct here (and he most certainly is not correct) then it would be a violation of the Nicene creed for the FEDS to craft laws prohibiting illegal immigration. After all laws protecting our country from illegal immigrants certainly prohibits the free actions and creativity of people made in the image of God. This is pure Libertarianism and not Theonomic in the least. Sumpter, like his mentor, Doug Wilson are Libertarians posing as Theonomists.

Clearly, Sumpter’s argument here is specious. A real theonomist like Rushdoony argued very differently about the Government making laws violently and coercively prohibiting the free actions and creativity of people made in the image of God. RJR offered,

“Well, first of all illegal aliens have broken the law. And justice to everyone requires that the law be upheld. So if they are illegal aliens they should be deported. Now that’s justice because it’s comparable to breaking and entering into a man’s house.”

Elsewhere the wise pastor Toby Sumpter writes,

“Others have suggested taking over the public schools and turning them into explicitly Christian schools funded by tax dollars and run by departments of education. All of which, I repeat, gives me the creeping fantods. ”

First, of all let it be noted that Biblical Christians would prefer for the public (government) schools to just be closed down with the responsibility of rearing children returned to the parents as opposed to being taken over by the Humanist state. However, failing that Sumpter should consider;

1.) Clearly  Sumpter doesn’t think neutrality is a myth. Sumpter seems to think that public schools can somehow be religious free and therefore they should not be Christian. Sumpter thinks, so it seems, that it is wrong for Christians to take Dominion over the public schools under the banner of Christ.

2.) Does Sumpter get the creeping fantods over the fact that the schools now are explicitly Humanists schools funded by tax dollars and run by departments of education?

You have a choice Dude. Either the Government schools are Christian or they are Pagan. Choose ye this day whom you will serve, either the gods of the pagans or the God of the Bible. This Libertarian smegma is not theonomy.

And here we find another example of creeping Libertarianism masquerading as theonomy coming from Rev. Doug Wilson.

“Christians must learn to distinguish sins from crimes. If God reveals His will on a matter, disobedience is sin. If God reveals the civil penalty which must be applied, then it is also a crime. But without wisdom from Him on the civil penalty to be applied, the civil order must leave enforcement of God’s law to the church, family, or the providence of God….when pornography is made and distributed, it should simply be used as evidence — of the adultery or of the sodomy, etc.”

Rev. Doug Wilson

Here Wilson is arguing that porn should not be criminalized by the State. It can be used as evidence in particular instances but it, itself should not be criminalized.

In his analogy between adultery/pornography and theft/movies which show theft, Wilson laments,

“Why do we resist punishing what God requires punishment for, and insist on punishments found nowhere in Scripture?”

“Cyberporn: A Case Study”
Credenda/Agenda_, vol. 7, no. 5, p. 11
It bears mentioning that not all modern Theonomists agree with Wilson that pornography is not a crime. For example, R. J. Rushdoony states;

“the link between pornography and revolutionary totalitarianism is a necessary one. The rise of totalitarianism has always been preceded by moral anarchism… the politics of pornography is a moral anarchism whose purpose is revolution, a revolution against Christian civilization. . . . Certainly new and clearer legislation [against porn — BLM] is necessary and urgently needed. . . we need and must have sound legislation”

Law and Liberty, pp. 18-20

In case you are not already aware there are serious problems today in what is left of Institutional Theonomy. Wilson and the CREC crowd might should just be called “the Cringe Crowd.” Gary DeMar over at American Vision has embraced full on Full Preterism. Sandlin is a ship that has no rutter. I seriously doubt the goofballs at Joel McDurmon’s “Baal’s Reign” even want to be known as theonomists.  Indeed, it would not be going to far to say Institutional Theonomy is dead were not for the work that Dr. Adi Schlebusch is doing at the Pactum Institute.

The Problem with our Cognoscenti

“He who is unaware of his ignorance, will only be misled by his knowledge.”

Richard Whately

I would have to say that herein we find the problem with to many in our clergy corps who are bright and educated but are still intellectual scofflaws. They have this vast pool of knowledge about any number of things from 16th century Elizabethan Puritanism, to Textual Criticism of the 18th Century Continentals, to the influence of Mercersburg theology on Philip Schaff as it influenced his Church history and yet the church languishes under their leadership. It is not that the subjects named above are bad. I want people around who know about those subjects. The problem is not with their areas of expertise. The problem is with their amazing ignorance, of which they are completely unfamiliar with, which puts all their grand learning in the service of the most idiotic and harmful of projects. For example how in the world could otherwise intelligent people come up with R2K, Federal Vision, or the New Perspective on Paul unless the quote by Whatley applies? We are a Church led by people who have not yet determined the difference between IQ and discernment, between the kind of mental acuity required for graduate and post-graduate work and the kind of mental acuity needed for the work of everyday living. We have a clergy corps who are long on theory but short on the ability to see the implications of where their theory is going to take us as a people.

And because of this, matters are going to get progressively worse in the Church.

Biden’s State of the Union Claims that Contradict Christianity

“We are a good people, the only nation in the world built on an idea.
That all of us, every one of us, is created equal in the image of God.”

Joe ‘Bite-Me’ Biden

2023 SOTU Address

1.) The Scripture teaches that there is none who are righteous. Christianity has always taught the idea of man’s sin nature and the truth of original sin. Biden’s speech stands in direct contradiction to Christianity 101. We are not a good people. We are a people who have a fallen sin nature who must be redeemed before we can even begin to pursue goodness.

2.) Note the pushing of the idea that the USA is a propositional nations. America, as founded, was never intended to be a nation built on an idea. That idea that we are a nation built on an idea came with the rule of the tyrant Abraham Lincoln who famously, but errantly said that this nation was “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” This idea of a propositional nation was when Lincoln seared it into America’s consciousness in 1863 with the Gettysburg address and it is still a lie when Joe Bite-Me repeats it in 2023. America, as the Constitution states formed a nation for white Europeans and their descendants. America was originally formed as a White Christian Nation.

3.) It is true that we are all created in the image of God. It is decidedly not true that we are all created equal in the image of God. It is clear and obvious that all men do not have the same abilities, capacities, giftedness, and talents. Men have never been created equal in the image of God. Men have been and continue to be created diverse in the image of God. So, from the Christian understanding all men are equal inasmuch as they are made of the same dirt, all men are equal inasmuch as they are all equally responsible before God’s law, all men are equal inasmuch as they are all equally dead in their sins and trespasses but all men are not equal inasmuch as they are all the same or will all realize the same potential if they are all given equal opportunity. This idea is nothing but long established and now accepted Liberal gobbledygook.

Impact of Immigration on National Cohesion & Identity

The main effect of the massive immigration that continues apace is to fracture the psychological bond of nationality leaving citizenship a hollowed out pseudo-legalism. That is because the diversity that massive immigration brings is associated with not only rising violence such as with terrorism or civil war but also the general loss of social cohesion. This general loss of social cohesion is sometimes referred to as “Balkanization.” It is the idea that, with the introduction of vast and sundry immigration, what occurs is a Hobbesian warfare of all people groups against all people groups. At this point there is no longer any “National Identity” left but only “People Group Identities” of the varied people who are part of the internal empire’s rule. This occurrence leads to intense civil stress as all policy pursued by any National Government is going to be measured according to the differing standards of each interest group.

Then when one adds the reality of a welfare state  one finds that these balkanized special interest groups quickly learn that if they can manipulate the government, they can use its power to enrich themselves at the expense of the other groups. The “intense civil stress” mentioned above thus includes intense economic warfare as each people group struggle for a larger and larger share of the welfare state pie.

Clearly, then, unlimited immigration is pursued with a view of deconstructing the country that existed prior to the wave of unlimited immigration.

Of course, all this also gives the lie to the idea that “Diversity is our strength.”

The Revolt Against the New Liberal Man

The liberal project, born of the Renaissance and matured upon the blood of the Enlightenment always has had at its heart the desire to set free the individual from the situatedness of life in which people were conceived and birthed into. Liberalism taught its padawans that the greatest freedom was freedom from any identity that wasn’t freely chosen by the autonomous sovereign self. We can hear this theme in the cry of the  sans-culottes; “No God, No King.” Self chosen identity, quite apart from any outside imposed or inherited identity would not be allowed.

With this flight from all situatedness institutional identity markers that had been held for centuries as the cornerstones of the Christian faith were attacked. The liberal vision attacked the natural bonds of family, community, and nation, setting the atomistic self free to rearrange these bonds in any order the new liberal man might see fit. With the flowering of the liberal vision came the end to the trustee family, the end of localism, and regionalism, and the end of the sense of belonging to the land and to the people. All of these were exchanged for the right of the sovereign self to choose his/her own identities. For the new liberal man the glue that would hold new social orders together would be abstractions like “liberty,” “equality,” and “fraternity,” and not a people, a place, and a present informed by God’s Word as it shaped the generations prior. For the new liberal man there would be “liberty leading a generic people” but there would be no fathers who would be heroes, no space which would be Holy, and no concern about leaving an inheritance behind for our children. The liberal demand for equality eliminated father heroes, Holy Space, and inheritance left for those who belong uniquely to us.

Liberalism rearranged reality in order to create a society where the new liberal man was not burdened by any previous situatedness. The new liberal man was a self creating God who could leave behind “belongingness” to pursue the happiness needs of the sovereign self. The new liberal man was a rights-bearing individual who conveniently was absent of any duty-bearing obligations to a prior received situatedness. With every success of the new liberal man came the necessity to push the boundaries even further in terms of how the new liberal man could create his/her own rights and reality.

However, snapback always comes. The pendulum can only go so far before it begins to swing back and it is that swing-back that we are seeing among some of the young men and women of the West who are crying out for an older view that goes behind liberalism. The Trad-West crowd are awakening to understand that reality and social organization predates their arrival and they long for the situatedness for which the new liberal man had such disgust. The young Trad-West crowd are reaching back for a stability that comes with faith, family, and place. Many of the Trad-West crowd don’t understand that only Christianity can give what they desire. They are properly put off with the “Christianity” that has been in service of the new liberal man’s vision of liberty, equality, fraternity and so have an animus towards Christianity.  Part of the challenge for the Christian faith is to communicate that it is Christianity alone which teaches that human beings are not the sum of their autonomous choices. Only Christianity consistently forswears the liberal (and Pelagian) anthropology that insists that humans are defined through acts of individual choice and self-expression alone. Only Christianity teaches original sin, sin nature, and then tells how situatedness can be beautiful for the Redeemed community. Christianity teaches that all men were born into a set of beautiful “givens” and that man is responsible to honor and cultivate that situatedness ordained and bequeathed unto him by God Almighty. Christianity with its covenant theology provides a way to embrace kinship, and descent as norms without family, people, nation or race becoming idolized. Christianity teaches a particularity of people, place, and patrimony which ought to have placed an properly ordered affection that properly prioritizes our people, our place, and our patrimony. All of that is hated by the liberal vision that is constantly bleating about the dangers of “identity politics” or the dangers of “racism” or the dangers of “Kinism.”

The liberal order is ending, though it is kicking and screaming as it is being pushed off stage. Thankfully, we will never go back to some kind of caste system where we are locked into a place that we can never be rescued from because of our family line. However, just as clearly, we are moving away from the liberal vision where the atomistic sovereign self choose and creates his own destiny quite apart from obligations and responsibilities to the situatedness in which he was born. The absolutizing of freedom characteristic of the new liberal man has created a social order where people are isolated, lonely, and miserable. The absolutizing of freedom characteristic of the new liberal man has created a nostalgia for belongingness that is natural and not contrived. There exists now among many a desire to return to thick identities explained by the belongingness that is a consequence of family, place, patrimony, and most of all by the reality that it is God who places men in families.

Liberalism, with its insistence that it would not be satisfied until the last King was strangled with the entrails of the last Priest dealt itself its own death blow as it sought to tear up the very roots of human identity. Liberalism was the vision of rending every natural (and Biblical) source of human belonging into a thousand pieces in favor of unnatural and so disordered affections. Liberalism pitted freedom and order against one another and gave us a freedom that was the worst bondage of all — the bondage of that absence of natural belonging.

The modern Church in the West seems to miss much of this. There is, among the modern clergy, a knee-jerk reaction against all that would stand for ordered affections as being distinctly Christian. The contemporary Church in the West is a liberal Church at its core as seen by its disassociating itself with books like “Who Is My Neighbor,” which demonstrates that Christianity has never been in favor of the new liberal man. The modern church — even in its most conservative expression — cringes at the notion that men owe a special allegiance to their own people, place, and patrimony that they don’t owe to the stranger and the alien. And this even after it has been insisted that love for one’s own people does not mean hatred for those who are not one’s own people. The “situatedness” that we are advocating for is essential for what it means to be human. As such we are no longer making mea culpas for advocating a social order that God has ordained and we are no longer acting ashamed because we are no longer adherents to a Christianity that is more Rousseau than it is Jesus Christ.