Category: ecclesiology

Rushdoony Speaks From The Grave; “Theonomy/Reconstructionism Is Opposed To Movement Libertarianism”

 Lately, in some quarters (like the Natural Law fanboys) there has been a ear worm that has been issuing forth. The complaint they have been ginning up is that Theonomy is inherently Libertarian. Upon making that accusation they then turn a use that accusation as a foundational attack on the whole theonomic movement.

Now, this accusation suffers by being half true and so therefore totally false. It is true that some of those called “theonomists” did indeed embrace what I will call movement Libertarianism. Gary North is the most obvious example. Others, who were originally in Rushdoony’s orbit, include chaps like Andrew Sandlin, likewise had the fault of being more Libertarian than Theonomic. This would include Doug Wilson. We even see some of this in Greg Bahnsen.

However, what might be true of Rushdoony’s Lieutenants was not true of Rush himself. As we will see below by quoting Rush, Rush made distinctions between movement Libertarianism and the Libertarianism that he was championing. Rushdoony, and so Theonomy, is not necessarily Libertarian, though it is true that the 2nd generation Reconstructionists have twisted it to make it so. Because that is true, it is understandable that people would accuse theonomy as being “Libertarian.” Understandable, but still not true.

Part of the problem here is the greater project of Fusionism that occurred in the post WW II conservative movement. The post war conservative movement, in order to build heft, sought to meld together several ideological disciplines into one cohesive whole in order to resist the New Deal Liberal phalanx.  One of those ideological disciplines that Fusionism fused into this “Conservative” movement was Libertarianism. What can we observe here except to say that “Politics makes strange bedfellows.”

Anyway Rushdoony agreed with the Libertarian principle of limited, diffuse, and decentralized government but Rush did not agree that the Libertarian idea of the Free Market should govern all. Such a conviction would have completely overturned the idea of theonomy.

Indeed, so opposed to movement Libertarianism was RJR that one of Rush’s main foils when he lectures on movement Libertarianism is a chap named Max Stirner. Stirner was an early opponent of Karl Marx, and that because Stirner took Marx’s principle to their logical conclusions — Libertarian conclusions that contradicted Marx’s unitary state. RJR says that Marx hated Stirner more than any of his opponents. Rush demonstrates how Stirner’s ultra Libertarianism (Anarchy) was correct vis-a-vis Marx given Marx’s presuppositions. For that reason, Rush was opposed to both Marx’s collectivism and Stirner’s Anarchy since both reasoned from shared core principles. In brief Rush was not Libertarian except in a very definite limited sense.

One can go to the pocketcollege.com website and find all this out for themselves by searching for “Max Stirner Libertarianism.”

Having laid this foundation, I will give one RJR quote on Libertarianism that demonstrates that the accusation that theonomy is inherently Libertarian is just a unlearned statement though I do concede that many of the latter day Theonomists are more Libertarian then they are disciples of Rushdoony.

Was RJR a Libertarian? You read this quote from Roots of Reconstruction and tell me.

“Reality, in brief was reduced to a particular institution or discipline of which men were the governors or interpreters.

This same fallacy has marked economics, in that all too many free market advocates under the influence of the philosophy of immanentism, have taken this one sphere of law and absolutized it as the only law. We do agree with classical economics as economics (this is a reference to Libertarian Economics of the Misean school), but not as a religious philosophy. When it is converted into a religious philosophy of immanence, it denies validity to any transcendental law of God and to all other institutions and orders of life unless they pass the test of the free market. Free market economics then becomes totalitarian and absolutist: it becomes idolatry. Some hold that the family and prostitution, and normal and perverted sexuality, must compete on a free market basis. Narcotics and good food are reduced to the same free market test. In brief, anything and everything goes, because there is only one law, the free market. (0ne person contends that there should be no title to property, but only the right of access by everyone who is able to command the power and money to take the property, in other words, a free market to power and violence as well.) Any value derived from any other sphere, or any principled judgment derived from a transcendental order, from God, must compete on a free market basis it is held. This is simply saying that the free market is god, and that it is the absolute and sole value in the universe. It assumes there is no God beyond the market, no other law, no other value, than the free market. Moreover, because the free market has its truth in the economic sphere, they sit back smugly, satisfied that they have the key to life. The Marxists no less than other Totalitarians stress one or two partial “Truths”, which they use to exclude all truth and God, and the same is true of those who reduce the world to matter. The free market religionists are really great enemies of free market economics, in that they pervert an instrument of freedom into a form of totalitarianism. It is not surprising that many free market religionists have in recent years been very congenial to the New Left; both are alike in their strident totalitarianism.”

R. J. Rushdoony

Roots of Reconstruction — pg. 809-810

1972

Elsewhere in his lectures Rushdoony could say of Libertarianism;

 

[Rushdoony] “Sometime back without realizing all the implications of what I said I described libertarian thinking with its free market thinking and all as economic totalitarianism, because they were taking a few good ideas in economics and making them apply to every area of life. They were saying there should be a free market in sex so that all practices, for example, could be equally tolerated and approved. And this was taking one idea and extending it and saying every area has to be ruled by this sole economic concept….”

______________________

(Audience) Now where do you put the Libertarian in? Those that are not Christian-(unintelligible)

(Rushdoony) The libertarians are humanist to the core.

(Audience) (Unintelligible) –they don’t want any government.

(Rushdoony) That’s true, but they are looking to man. In other words, each man is capable, he doesn’t need the state. But the answer Marx said: it’s either this kind of total anarchism, or total statism. And he said, total statism makes more sense. So Marx was ready to agree with these libertarians, only he said it’s not as workable, it leads to all kinds of problems, so why not total statism? And instead of a lot of little gods running around have one big collective god and you’re better off.

In his Institutes of Biblical Law Rushdoony wrote against movement Libertarianism,

“A society without coercion is often dreamed of by humanistic revolutionists. Anarchism is of course that philosophy which maintains that man can find fulfilment only in a nonstatist, voluntaristic, and noncoercive society. Libertarianism is increasingly an openly anarchistic and relativistic philosophy…Modern libertarianism rests on a radical relativism: no law or standard exists apart from man himself…If all men are angels, then a total free market of ideas and practices will produce only an angelic community. But if all men are sinners in need of Christ’s redemption, then a free market of ideas and practices will produce only a chaos of evil and anarchy. Both the libertarian and the biblical positions rest on faith, the one on faith in the natural goodness of man, the other on God’s revelation concerning man’s sinful state and glorious potential in Christ.”

R. J. Rushdoony
Institutes of Biblical Law

 

This old blog post likewises touches some of these matters;

Rushdoony and the Limits of a Limitless Libertarianism.

 

The Storm Is Breaking

In a letter former President Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend concerning the 1820 Missouri compromise, which Jefferson perceived as an infringement on states’ rights. Jefferson wrote that the Compromise, came to me “like a fire-bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union.”

For Jefferson the compromise was a portent of what eventually came to pass 41 years later with the war of Northern Aggression.

Being able to read the signs of the times is not always easy. However, one does not need to be a Thomas Jefferson to know that the earth is currently moving under our feet. This is true in a number of fields and disciplines but it is especially true in the putatively conservative church where the lack of genuine conservatism is now being exposed in spades.

In the last few years those denominations considered “White Hat” denominations have revealed that their hats are more gray than white. The PCA could not condemn side-B sodomites in their midst. The OPC first had kittens about a potential but unconfirmed racist at one of their recent General Assemblies. They later found out it was a false alarm but not before accusations were flying thicker than flies on cow paddies. Then later the OPC shanghaied Michael Spangler for the grievous sin of calling a she wolf a “She-wolf.” Word squirreled back to me that one of the Presbyteries in one of these White Hat denominations that they ordained a candidate who boldly asserted his embrace of Socialism. Given Red Karl Truman’s embrace of socialist medicine this is not a wonder.

Not to be outdone the denomination that many at one time thought would be the white knight planting a banner around all conservatives might rally to make one last noble stand is now a laughing stock. The CREC, with its “great man,” Doug Wilson, has demonstrated a defiance against traditional understandings on Christian social order as penned out by the likes of Agustine, Chrysostom, Luther, Calvin and numerous others. This was put on parade in a recent advertisement by Canon Press where the cult Star of Remphan was atop a Christmas tree with the prose, “have yourself a Judeo-Christian Christmas … Israel’s role in the Christmas story.” This was obviously some high leveling trolling against the Ogden, Utah group but one is asking … “At what costs Moscow?” I have had several people tell me that they canceled Canon Press subscriptions because of this stunt. This finds me praying that Doug and his crew will continue with such hijinks.

What has been chronicled above is just a whitman’s sampler of seismic shift that we are currently living through in the “conservative church.” The interesting thing here is that a two generations ago (when I was 25) the Church could get away with this kind of behavior without even it being noticed. However, 2025 is not the same as 1985 and now there is a ground swell of men born after 1985 who are raising the black flag and saying … “We are no longer putting up with this skubala from the clergy gatekeepers.”

You see what has happened is that there has been a kind of awakening. Not the kind of awakening associated with the first great or second great awakening. This is a kind of awakening that not only is embracing Christian truth but is embracing the truth of Christianity long held by Fathers in epochs gone past. This awakening is especially as it pertains to what Christianity looks like as it meets social order realities. This awakening is an awakening to the nobility of the Christian fathers who fought in the Crusades … the Christian Fathers who were colonizers for the glory of God … the Christian Fathers who because they knew the Bagel, kept the Bagel at arm’s length…. the Christian Fathers who knew that Martin Luther King was a con and that civil rights was primarily about Marxism before it was about Christianity. This awakening is not afraid to question the historical veracity of all the details of the Holocaust…. not afraid to call Winston Churchill and FDR  ruddy tyrants, every bit as maniacal and full of blood lust as Stalin. All of these re-examinations of history that this awakening is bringing to pass is based on a embrace of a Christianity that is of a very different species than what the West has concocted since the Endarkenment.

These younger chaps are to the established “Christian” church what the Visigoths at the gates were to Rome once upon a time. There is a cold fear and a hot protest in the James Whites, Doug Wilsons, Joe Boots, Andrew Sandlins, of the ecclesial world. The Dandys in the official White Hat denominations are pissing in their boots afraid that one of these warriors will show up in church upsetting the peace that has come with congregations embracing government schools, tyrannical governments, and limp-wristed clergy.

The shibboleths are fixin’ to fall and when they fall great will be the crash. Shane Anderson in a recent piece noted some of these Shibboleths that are crashing on the cascading protests of those belonging to another generation besides our clues conservative class;

“Israel is our greatest ally; there’s no Jewish conspiracy to corrupt Christian societies.”

“There’s no real sin of gluttony, and we’re not being poisoned.”

“Working out is gay.”

“Christian men are the problem, women are always victims.”

“Diversity is our strength, and race isn’t real.”

“Humility means doing what your rebellious parents want.”

“If people get upset at you, you have been unwise.”

“Stop wasting time by talking about these things, they don’t matter because they don’t matter to me.”

Men are waking up and in their awakening they are in no mood to be told to go back to sleep by those who have anointed themselves as “the Reformed Gatekeepers.” In this climate Gatekeepers will no longer work because everyone has access to the sources. With the proliferation of information its not as if we need people who can claim the status of “the keepers of the wisdom of the ages.” It’s all at anybody’s fingertips who has the time and desires to delve into the books

To be honest, in all of this I am being intoxicated with the liquor of being vindicated. I’ve been screaming ruddy murder for decades along with a handful of blokes my age who share my convictions, about these same kind of things that those a generation or two behind us are now rightly screaming about but our reward as been a prophet’s reward. We have been treated with the mailed backhand — the same way that Spangler has recently been treated, but without the widespread sense of injustice that has accompanied Spangler’s “spanking.”

So, I am satisfied by all this but still I can pray that the establishment awakens before the tidal wave completely sweeps them away.

For those of you in the Church observing all this or just becoming aware of this battle royale you will not be able to avoid the war. The conflict is upon you whether you would wish it to be so or not. The best thing you can do is seek to que up to speed. The pursuit of personal peace and affluence will no longer serve as a harbor for safety. The storm is breaking in the Church and all across every other front and nobody is going to escape the changes the weather is bringing.

If the visible Church does not alter its course it will either go into eclipse or it will remain even more of a tool for the luciferian social order that we are currently living under. Regardless of which they choose, the young blokes who are in attack mode are not going to retire from this battle.

Y’all know who I’m pulling for.

Elder’s Rule … Laity Submits

Acts 20:38 — Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

I Corinthians 16:15 I urge you, brethren—you know the household of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints— 16 that you also submit to such, and to everyone who works and labors with us.

I Thessalonians 5:12And we urge you, brethren, to recognize those who labor among you, and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, 13 In love, hold them in highest regard because of their work. Live in peace with one another.

I Timothy 5:17 Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.

Hebrews 13:7 Remember those who [a]rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct….

17.) Obey those who [e]rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.

The function and role of an elder is well summarized by Alexander Strauch in his book Biblical Eldership:

“Elders lead the church [1 Tim 5:17; Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 5:1–2], teach and preach the Word [1 Timothy 3:2; 2 Timothy 4:2; Titus 1:9], protect the church from false teachers [Acts 20:17, 28–31], exhort and admonish the saints in sound doctrine [1 Timothy 4:13; 2 Timothy 3:13–17; Titus 1:9], visit the sick and pray [James 5:14; Acts 6:4], and judge doctrinal issues [Acts 15:6]. In biblical terminology, elders shepherd, oversee, lead, and care for the local church” (16).

Obvious truths we have learned from the Scripture we have cited;

1.) There exists and has always existed a God ordained hierarchy not only in the home where husbands are to rule their wives and children, and not only in the civil realm where Magistrates are to rule the citizenry, but also in the Church where the Elders are to rule the laity.

2.) This truth in turn reminds us when discussing all of this of the necessity to understand Jurisdictionalism. There are these sphere of jurisdiction that God has appointed and in those spheres of jurisdiction God has named different authorities. These jurisdictions are important to keep in mind since the respective authorities in the differing jurisdiction must seek to honor the distinct jurisdictions.

For example, as an Elder, I do not have the authority to come into your home and rule your home unless for some reason you have grossly abdicated your legitimate authority by no longer ruling your home “in the Lord.” At that time the Elders will come to you, point out the appropriate Scripture that someone is walking contrary to, and then will ask you to repent. This is the kind of action that we see the Apostle Paul call for in I Corinthians 5;

 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even [a]named among the Gentiles—that a man has his father’s wife! 2 And you are [b]puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord [c]Jesus.

Here St. Paul is taking up his authority as an Elder to correct both an individual in the Corinthian congregation but also the Church as a whole.  St. Paul later in II Timothy gives Timothy the Elder to do this very same kind of work:

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,

Now obviously this kind of authority, like all authority can be abused. The maxim, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely” does not find any exceptions among those who are Elders in Christ’s church. So, when we insist, with Scripture that the role of the Elder is to engage, when necessary, in reproof and correction of the flock Elders should understand that power can go to their head. This is why, we have a plurality of Elders so that no one Elder is holding all the authority.

So we see here that one area in which an Elder rules in the Church and one area therefore upon which the laity are obliged to submit (Hebrews 13:17) is when it comes to the area of morals and doctrine. The Elders are to be the gatekeepers for the proper thinking (Doctrine) and proper morals (Behavior) as among God’s people. This is why St. Paul told the Church in Corinth to excommunicate the man who was sleeping with his step-mother. It is why Scripture repeatedly calls Elders to guard what was committed to their trust (I Timothy 6:20-21).

The Church is the Bride of Christ and it is the role of the Elders to protect the purity of the Bride.

Now, of course Elder’s fail and given this high and holy calling they can’t help but be hypocrites since they themselves can never reach the standard that is placed upon all God’s people for holiness of living and thinking. Yet, despite that reality Elders are called to rule and the laity is called to submit.

Now, what we have seen so far?

1.) We have seen a wee bit what Elders are called to do in their role as God’s appointed leader of the Church.

2.) We have noted that the role of the laity is to submit when their Elders are ruling them as “in the Lord.” Now, if an Elder comes to you to speak on some matter of course the initial route is not likely going to be instant ultimatums but rather the course is going to be one of reasoned conversation. The exception to that is if someone here would be doing something extreme like sleeping with their stepmother or advancing Radical Two Kingdom theology among the saints.

3.) We began to look at the notion of jurisdictional spheres and tried to emphasize that the authority of an Elder rests in the jurisdictional sphere of the Church just as the role of the Father/Husband rests in the jurisdictional sphere of the home.

Let’s talk about that one just a wee bit more.

The jurisdictional spheres as found in the Scripture means there are boundaries for authority. Jesus Christ is the only one who has all authority. Any authority here whether exercised by husband, Elder, or Magistrate is authority that exists in a very circumscribed sphere.

So a Magistrate cannot enter the Church and based on his authority as a magistrate violate the jurisdiction of the Church by presuming to rule in the affairs of the church unless the Church has grossly abdicated its legitimate authority by no longer ruling the Church as “in the Lord.” In the same way Elders in the Church cannot enter the civil sphere of the Magistrate and on the basis of his authority as an Elder violate the jurisdiction of the Magistrate by presuming to rule in the affairs of the civil order unless the Magistrate has grossly abdicated its legitimate authority by no longer ruling the civil order as “in the Lord.”

So, we have these spheres of jurisdictions and we have proper authorities ruling in each jurisdictional sphere. Conceptually this is not difficult to understand. Practically, if the God ordained rulers of each sphere rule as “in the Lord,” there is not going to be a problem in honoring those jurisdictions or the authorities therein. However, when one sphere gets out of whack that makes matters often very difficult.

For example when one jurisdiction ceases ruling as “in the Lord” then eventually authorities from another jurisdiction are going to have to interpose into that errant jurisdiction and set matters right. This is called the doctrine of interposition.

But let us not get to far afield from where we are at this morning. We will talk, I think, more about interposition in a later sermon. Right now let’s concentrate on the fact that the Church is a jurisdictional sphere of authority where God has placed a structure of hierarchy so as to have a ruler and ruled ecclesiastical order.

We have seen that Elders in the Church have ruling authority. This is indisputable from the Scripture that we have looked at. However, we pause to note again this stated hierarchy because it is in some sense disputed in some circles. Among the Anabaptist movement today one will learn that there is a leveling when it comes to the roles of leaders. In the Anabaptist movement (Mennonites, Amish, Brethren,) there is the principle that there is no such thing as interposition of human authority since the New Covenant. This means that the role of Elder in those Christian communities are going to be more egalitarian.

As such Anabaptist churches and Christians have a view of ecclesiastical authority that is going to be very different from the view of ecclesiastical authority as found among Roman Catholics who go to the opposite extreme. If the Anabaptist have a tendency to level all hierarchical structure in the Church, Rome and ecclesiastical models like Rome tend to absolutize ecclesiastical authority in the Church so that Priests, Bishops, Cardinals and Popes are seen as being vested with uber-authority that is not to be questioned.

The Reformed understanding of the role of Elders as a rulers was that of a ministerial role and not a magisterial role such is found in Rome. The Reformed understanding of the role of Elders as a rulers was that of the Shepherd of the flock who is a sheep himself with real authority  and not as just some kind of life coach such as might be found among the Anabaptists.

And because the Elder has real authority to lead, to lead by serving, and to rule the flock is called upon to submit as they are “ruled in the Lord.” We’ve seen that in the Scripture this morning. We also see it in our Confessions;

“All men are in duty bound to join and unite themselves with the Church, maintaining the unity of the Church;3 submitting themselves to the doctrine and discipline thereof; bowing their necks under the yoke of Jesus Christ;4

Belgic Confession Article 28

Now let us talk a wee bit more about what Elder authority looks like and how does it apply?

And for the answer to that we have only to reference our own Heidelberg Catechism as it faithfully teaches Scripture.

Keys

Question 82: Are they also to be admitted to this supper, who, by confession and life, declare themselves unbelieving and ungodly?

Answer: No; for by this, the covenant of God would be profaned and His wrath kindled against the whole congregation;10 therefore it is the duty of the Christian church, according to the appointment of Christ and His apostles, to exclude such persons 11 by the keys of the kingdom of heaven till they show amendment of life.

Question 83: What are the keys of the kingdom of heaven?1

Answer: The preaching of the holy gospel, and Christian discipline,2 or excommunication out of the Christian church;3 by these two, the kingdom of heaven is opened to believers and shut against unbelievers.

We learn here that by sound preaching the Elders exercise their authority. This would mean that every Lord’s Day upon your attendance at Morning, and Evening service as well as Sunday School  you are at that point practicing a submission to the Elder’s authority by sitting under the preaching of the Gospel.

As to Christian discipline, the word discipline in the Greek is paidea and it means to instruct or correct. Elders have the responsibility to instruct and correct the flock. This can happen as easily as in a casual conversation and it can happen as officially in official Church discipline. Most often it should happen in casual conversation. The more drama that is injected into the context of Christian discipline the less likely there will be a satisfactory result.

Question 85: How is the kingdom of heaven shut and opened by Christian discipline?

Answer: Thus: when according to the command of Christ,8 those, who under the name of Christians, maintain doctrines or practices inconsistent therewith,9 and will not, after having been often brotherly admonished, renounce their errors and wicked course of life, are complained of to the church or to those10 who are thereunto appointed by the church;11 and if they despise their admonition, are by them forbidden the use of the sacraments;12 whereby they are excluded from the Christian church and by God Himself from the kingdom of Christ; and when they promise and show real amendment, are again received as members of Christ and His church.13

Q. 85 here demonstrates again that the Elder is to rule and one means of ruling is to admonish (to lead, to have charge over) and the rule of is to be submitted to by the flock because a lack of submission means excommunication.

Now, having noted all this lets be realistic about Elder’s ruling and the flock submitting in today’s Church. I’ve been at this long enough now to know how this works in real life. When there is something that needs correction I go to the person in question and they blow me off. For example there have been numerous times over my 35 years in the ministry that I would challenge people about a tender subject and they would essentially tell me to mind my own business. If the matter is serious enough such as someone sleeping with their stepmother what happens is that somewhere along the path to excommunication they just up and leave and join the church down the block who doesn’t care about where they were because the other church is just happy for the new meat in the seat. Because, that is true the authority of the Elder in today’s church is largely irrelevant in the every day life of the Church.

And yet not irrelevant to God. Elders should take up their authority even if they know it will have little impact because in doing so they are being faithful to God even if there is little or no submission on the part of the laity and even if there is little or no fruit as a consequence of seeking to exercise Godly authority.

Finally, all that being said, as an Elder, I recognize how hard it must be for the flock to submit to Elders today given the character and lack of wisdom that we as clergy and Elders demonstrate today.

All of this is a matter we should be diligently in prayer about. The Church in the West is a mess and only God can deliver us now.

The good news is that in His time He will certainly do that. God will, in His time once again raise up good men to be Elders who wield authority with humility, yet with boldness. God will, in His time once again raise up laity who will see that their safety and well being lies in submitting to godly Elders. God will, in His time, renew, reform, and revitalize His Son’s bride so that she is once again without spot and without blemish.

May it happen in the lifetime of some of us in attendance today.

The Miserable State of the Clergy Seen in the Words of Tim Keller

“I’d rather be in a democracy than a state in which the government is officially Christian. Instead of trying to take power, I think what Christians ought to be doing is trying to renew their churches.”

-Tim Keller, Wall Street Journal
02 September 2022

“Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?”
 Henry II of England 
 Referring to Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1170 

1.) Understand what Keller has said here. He has said that he would rather be under a government that is non Christian than under a government that is officially Christian. Tim would rather have his magistrates be Christ haters than have magistrates who are in submission to Christ.

2.) Tim talks about how Christians shouldn’t “try to take power.” The question is “take power from whom?” Presumably, in Tim’s world Christians shouldn’t try to take power from non Christians and should be happy to be ruled by Christ-haters.  Has Rev. Keller ever considered that all power is derived from God, hence, godly men must pursue power  in order to honor God using power for righteous and godly ends — something that the Christ-hater can not do if he is consistent with his Christ hating worldview?

3.) You know Tim, it is possible to both try and renew our Churches and in godly ways seek to take power. The right honorable Dr. Rev. Tim Keller posits a false dichotomy when he suggest that Christians have a binary choice wherein they can either take power or they can renew their churches but they can’t do both. Has Tim ever considered that one piece of evidence that Churches are being renewed is that they seek to exercise godly dominion over the state apparatus?

Jon Harris On Transgenderism … McAtee Corrects Harris

Jon Harris is one of the guys in a white hat. Typically his material is quite good. However, Jon remains a Baptist and here his Baptist hackles were apparently raised by something Carl Trueman wrote. Jon tries to correct Trueman but fails miserably as I intend to demonstrate.

Jon Harris opined,

“People who think they’re trans don’t think they’re trans because they chose to be trans. On the contrary, they believe it was not their choice. They think its who they actually are independent of any choice they made. They believe gender is a social construct. So they root their identity in social interactions. (i.e. how they “experience” the world). This is why it is so important for them to receive social affirmation. People must experience them as their trans identity if gender is a social construct. Carl Trueman hinging this all on “radical individualism” is causing Christians to make basic mistakes. Mistakes like thinking Baptist theology leads to transgenderism because it supposedly bases Christian identity on choice. Mistakes like mocking people who think they’re trans by saying “if I chose to be a cat would I be?” It’s not about choice. It’s about experience. We need to clearly say, “You do not experience life as a trans person.” Often I hear Christians giving up the entire argument by saying things like, “That may be your experience, but what is true?” What is true is that they experience the world according to the way they were designed. Let’s stop reinforcing delusion.”

1.) Of course people who are trans don’t admit that they chose to be trans and so don’t think they chose to be trans. Just as sodomites don’t admit that they chose to be sodomite and so don’t think they chose to be sodomite. Very few people admit to choosing a lifestyle that is an abomination (Deuteronomy 22:5, Leviticus 18:22). So that people who think they’re trans refuse to say they consciously chose to be trans doesn’t mean that they didn’t consciously choose to be trans. Of course they chose to be Trans. Unless one is going to buy into the idea that they were genetically coded to be trans there is no other choice except that for whatever reason based possibly on whatever trauma in their lives they chose to be Trans.

2.) Of course they wouldn’t say that it was their choice. Now, I grant that it is possible that they didn’t even fully realize that they were making a choice when they made the choice and I grant that something horrific may well have entered into their life that moved them to make that choice, but for whatever reason, consciously made or silently acquiesced to, at some point it was decided that being trans was preferable to living in harmony with the way God made them.

3.) Of course they think being trans is who they actually are independent of any choice they made. What else would they say? If they admit that they made a choice then the whole “this is just the way I am” argument goes right out the door. That “this is just the way I am argument” is key because without it their perversion can’t gain traction. Without that argument then the abnormality of it all has to be admitted.

4.) Jon offers that Trans people root their identity in the way they experience the world suggesting that this “way they experience the world” is different from making a choice to be Trans. However, Jon, at this point has given us a false dichotomy when he wants to make a significant distinction Trans people being the way they are because they chose to be that way and Trans people being the way they are because that is the way they experience the world. At this point we have to ask … “Did not the Trans person choose to experience the world in the way in which they experience the world?” Jon’s false dichotomy gives his argument no traction.

5.) I have my issues with Carl Trueman but in this case Trueman is correct when he observes that all of this grows out of a radical atomistic individualism that has swamped the West. On this score Trueman has not made any mistakes.

6.) Whether Harris likes it or not Baptist Baptism “theology” and transgenderism “ideology” do indeed have a point of contact and that point of contact is the denial that God does designate a person’s identity. Baptists deny God designating a baby’s identity as “covenant member” requiring the individual to choose for themselves and Tranny’s deny God designating a person’s gender as male or female, allowing the individual to decide for themselves. For both the Baptist and Transgender identity at a pivotal point is a social construct. For Baptist being in the covenant or not in the covenant is a social construct to be determined by the sovereign individual. As such they will not give Baptism to a child until that child determines their own social construct by choosing Jesus. For the Tranny being male or female is a social construct to be determined by the sovereign individual, and there are parents that are so buying into this that they are refusing to tell their child what gender they are so that the child can choose the social construct themselves.

Maybe we should refer to such parents as “Gender Baptists?”

Naturally enough, Jon doesn’t like this linkage because it hits too close to his Baptist home.

7.) I must agree with Jon about not using the “If I think I’m a cat does that make me a cat” argument with the Trans person because it is clearly the case that we are at a point that their replying with “yes” is not going to make very many people blink.

8.) And I agree that we must quit reinforcing delusion. However, Jon’s apologetic that we must tell the Trans person that they have to stop experiencing the world as Trans requires them to make a choice to do so, and at that point we see, once again, that Jon is involved in a false dichotomy.

But he has to reach for this false dichotomy because otherwise he may have to give up his Baptist radical atomistic individualism.