I spent two posts dismissing Rev. Chris Gordon’s dismissal of Christian Nationalism/Post-millennialism, only to read today a “Mother Jones” article that is seeking to warn everybody about the rise of what Gordon says is a dying movement. As odd as it may sound it seems both “Mother Jones” and I agree on something vis-a-vis Chris Gordon.
The “Mother Jones” article is worth a read in my opinion. What is most interesting about the “Mother Jones” piece is that this traditionally liberal rag gives the movement that Gordon so eschews a more objective take than most people like Gordon and the ilk from the Reformed-Evangelical world give the movement. Now, to be sure, “Mother Jones” is opposed to the movement and it’s article is seeking to “expose” the movement as something dangerous, but even despite that obvious slant there is in the piece a more even handed approach to what is being reported on then can be found from the likes of Chris Gordon and his R2K/Pietistic Baptist fellow travelers.
You can read the article for yourself if you please. However, there is one point I want to draw attention to and that is the label “Mother Jones” gives the movement. The label “Mother Jones” gives is “The Theobros.” Now, the problem I have with this handle is that it subtly implies that “The Theobros” are brothers who are uniquely operating according to a common theology. The beef here is, is that those who are opposed “The Theobros,” like “Mother Jones” are themselves also Theobros, in the sense that their militant opposition to “The Theobros” is based on a shared theology. It is not as if “The Theobros” are unique in being bonded together by their shared theology. When bond are bonded together a key factor in their being bonded together for a particular cause is a theology that makes them Theobros.
I point this out because I am convinced that underneath this labeling is the idea that people can be scared of “The Theobros” movement for the precise reason that they are caricatured as religious extremists, when in point of fact it is the Marxist Theobros opposing “The Theobros” who are the religious extremists.
If I may, I will only give one critique of “The Theobros.” This critique is not based on the article, though the article, if read closely, I think lends credence to this critique. My critique of “The Theobros” movement is that it is not self-referentially consistent. Now, some are clearly better than others among “The Theobros” but there are many in this movement who are only interested in taking half-measures, half-taken. The remedy that many in this movement are offering will not cure the disease. So, even if they are successful, I do not think that we, as a Christian nation, will be much better off. Oh, we may be better off for a season but the basic trajectory this nation is on will not be altered. The one way I could be wrong on this is if “The Theobros” movement is muting their voices because they know that, politically speaking, they can not say the quiet parts out loud. In brief, I do think that many of them are trying to move the Overton Window but they are not moving it yet past what is still considered acceptable by those on the right side of the left. As I noted, this may be merely a tactic rather than a conviction.
This brings me to a tangent that while unrelated to the “Mother Jones” article remains related to the subject as a whole.
Recently, I was talking to someone I am fairly confident would be considered a “Theobros.” During the conversation he said that he did not like the methodology of Kinism. As someone who knows a little bit about Kinism I asked him if he could be precise as to what this methodology of Kinism is to which he objects.
He replied by noting two things that I would like to spill a few sentence examining.
First he said, “That I don’t like how Kinists say that inter-racial marriage is sin.”
I must admit that I find this flummoxing. It is true that there are some few Kinists who say that all inter-racial marriage is sin. However, there are also even more Kinists who do not say that all inter-racial marriages are sin always all the time. There are more than a few Kinists, like myself, who merely say that while inter-racial marriages can be sin, they are not necessarily always sin but are normatively, as the higher statistical averages on the divorce rate for inter-racial couples bear out, not wise, and so these Kinists strongly counsel against such marriages, stopping short of labeling it as “always sin.”
https://www.thehivelaw.com/blog/interracial-divorce-rates-what-percentage-of-interracial-marriages-end-in-divorce/
My conversation partner’s protest then was not valid on this point.
His second reason for “not liking the methodology of Kinism,” was his being wedded to the theory of Natural Law. He doesn’t like the fact that Kinists, often (though not always) being theonomists, find Natural Law theory ridiculous. I sought to assure him that some Kinists might well embrace Natural Law while still being Kinists. This objection of his to “so called” Kinist methodology is even more non-weighty than his first objection. If one desires to embrace Natural Law while embracing Kinism nobody is going to tear up your Kinist membership card though you may be challenged on that particular point as a side-bar discussion.
What I see has happened is that the word “Kinism” has been turned into a “boogeyman.” Just as people are scared of being tagged with the word “racist,” or “anti-semite,” or “homophobic” so they have been convinced that being labeled with the opprobrium of “Kinist” is the worst thing in the world to happen. However, like the other words just mentioned, people do not realize that they are being manipulated to operate in the world view of those who are slinging the accusations. Since otherwise decent people are being stampeded into avoiding the left hurling these words at them, people begin to operate in such a way as to avoid these empty-minded pejoratives and in their mad rush to avoid these slurs these otherwise decent people operate in terms of their enemy’s world and life view.
Given the world and life view of God’s enemies and our enemies there is not necessarily or automatically any sin in being what they call “racist” or “anti-semite,” or “homophobe” or even “Kinist.” These are just words used to manipulate people into accepting their Cultural Marxist Weltanschauung (Worldview). If we are going to be successful in resisting the Cultural Marxists we need to get used to the way they hurl these words at us and reply with something like;
“Well, I’m sure to someone who is a Cultural Marxist like yourself your accusations make sense, and honestly, were I a Cultural Marxist like you I might say the same, but since I am not a Cultural Marxist, but instead am a Christian, I do not share the premise behind your accusations, and so find your accusations to be folly. I do not take your accusations seriously in the least.”