Rev. Chris Gordon reasons that since a nation as a nation can’t be connected in membership to a visible church therefore it is wrong to use the language of “Christian nation.” Gordon also desires to make the definition of a Christian Nation as something that is uniquely applied to the State. Gordon confuses the nation with the State. It is possible, after all, for a Christian nation to be led by non-Christian magistrates. Such a situation would not last long, I suspect, but it is possible much in the way when a Protestant people would be ruled by a Roman Catholic Monarch.

Gordon’s problem here is that he will not concede that if a nation operates on the basis of Christian law and custom it can therefore legitimately be considered Christian in the sense that it is governed in a way consistent with God’s revelation and mores. Gordon is insisting that since a nation can’t be baptized and become a member of a particular church therefore a nation can’t be Christian. However, on this basis nothing can be Christian except for the individual. Education can’t be considered Christian since Education can’t be be baptized and become a member of a particular visible church. Law or Jurisprudence can’t be considered Christian since Law/Jurisprudence can’t be baptized and required to take membership vows.

Gordon’s problem here is his constrained definition of the word “Christian.” Gordon can’t seem to conceptualize that when individual Christians bring their distinctly Christian convictions with them in their various callings, those callings are injected with a Christian gravitas that was not previously present in those convictions and as a result that cultural byproduct that the Christian individual is creating can indeed by considered “Christian,” in the sense that it is being animated by the truths of Biblical Christianity applied to some public square instantiation.

Gordon seems not to realize the distinction between “structure,” and “direction.” It is true that we have these various “structures” as part of our society/culture (family, education, arts, law, politics, church, etc.) but the structures themselves always are going to be arcing in a particular religious direction. That religious direction could be Mooselimb, Bagel, Christian, Humanist, Marxist, etc. When the direction of a societies/cultures is consistent with God’s special revelation it is arcing in a particularly Christian direction and given that direction it can and should be called “Christian.” If that culture is arcing consistent with another religion it should be called; “Mooselimb” or “Talmudists,” or “Humanist,” or “Marxist,” etc.

Gordon’s failure to see the above results in his creating, at the very least in a defacto sense, a neutral common realm where no religious appellation can be fixed upon the peoples inhabiting and creating that culture. For Gordon, and all R2K, society/culture is by definition irreligious or a-religious.

Gordon Interview W/ Wolfe
Start appx. 16:00