The political and social landscape is changing. Churches and their leaders are adapting, but not in the ways you might expect. Let's try to understand the phenomenon of the "regimevangelical."
Sphere Sovereignty is a critical concept in the discussion. The Founders understood that and attempted to minimize the points of conflict by minimizing government. They would not be surprised to see what has become of their work.
Individual Christians must determine who they serve while being faithful to God's command to obey the leaders He has placed over us. The local church, as you note, is the place this must be worked out in practice. Hopefully networks of churches will be developed to encourage and support each other.
"Whom do you serve?" remains the pressing question of the day.
I mentioned something similar to Auron MacIntyre at last year's Scyldings' Nashville Conference. It struck me as a strange coincidence that the dissident right was taking this point from de Maistre while independently the neo-Calvinists were justifying Christian Nationalism based upon sphere sovereignty from Kuyper. I haven't read Contra Mundum by Thomas Isham, but I'm hoping there's a direct link there between the two.
Jason, I'm very familiar with the passages you are referencing here, and your interpretation of them is quite common. In light of the above article, how would you defend this interpretation? Is it really true that God has placed those leaders over you who hate you and wish to see you suffer? I hear this interpretation taught most by those leaders who are in many other ways attempting to bend Biblical/Christian teaching into the current power structure, as the article describes. It just seems so obviously contradictory to conclude that God has given us leaders who demand we renounce Him. There must be some better explanation than, "Determine who you serve while... obeying the leaders," which is the literal meaning of what you said above. This seems to mean you have chosen to obey men rather than God, but I doubt you're aware of this contradiction, or have a better explanation of what you mean. Your thoughts?
Tough sledding there, for sure. "My ways are not your ways and my thoughts are not your thoughts" is helpful in understanding that it is not possible for us to comprehend God nor begin to understand how He works His will in all things. That may seem a cop out but I don't believe it is rational to expect to comprehend the infinite God. He says He sets rulers up and takes them down. We also know that He often gives us what we want and sometimes what we deserve; and still is not thwarted in His sovereign will.
The concept of sphere sovereignty, as I understand it, follows Scripture teaching that we are to respect and pray for our leaders, and obey them to the extent they do not usurp the prerogatives of God. In that case, it is clear that we are to obey God rather than man. Where we lack wisdom on the margins, we are to seek it and God has promised to give freely.
I claim only to see such matters through a glass darkly but hope this is helpful to your thinking.
Re my question you reference; I borrowed Saruman's question of the Urik Hai. Will you serve God or man? That is the question in every age.
This is a fantastic piece. it gives me a framework to talk about my own thoughts, which are largely aligned with yours. it's definitely a discombobulating time to be a Christian, but I see a few reasons for hope (not calling you a doomer, I've just been trying to reflect on positive things more lately):
1) Federalism lends itself to enclaves where the minority opinion can remain in force (this is currently happening with abortion), and states/counties may be natural kingly successors should a falling out with the federal government occur.
2) if federalism doesn't work out, at least we're not alone in this world. We likely have much to learn from our Middle and Far Eastern brethren.
Glad it resonated with you. Yes there are embedded ideas in the American ethos that can be stirred up and built on. These are not entirely alien or new concepts.
Rodney Stark, Rise of Christianity provides a highly germane perspective on transformation of Empire, from within. Not much about political violence, though. I can dig out a summary of it, if requested.
Interesting to see earlier generations of law makers took the Christian foundation of the state as a given so did not need to particularly develop it. As secular challenges have come in, academia and civil society in general has become a place where a more articulate counter-cultural Christianity is developed.
The question of abortion can hardly matter within the wider aseptic order of birth and financial union. In the same way, Christian advocacy of an indirect power can only be corrupted by the forces of democratic man, who has captured the earth and achieved the decisive rule of God over friends and enemies. Where is the papal state to which one's political faith may be offered?
Perhaps why you do not clarify what the dominant governing structures are, how the indirect power is to establish equalizing laws, or how your own activism resists "blowing off steam".
To establish a political theology today one would first have to confront Christian titanism, which is foremost a meeting of nihilism and organisationalism, democracy's automatic and self-legitimising type of 'protection' (it is important here to not imprint classical rules onto a non-classical system). The Catholic order proceeds through decay, and the Protestant through mummification. To advocate for an indirect power risks increasing this process. In short, a protest theology threatens a return to the problem of the Behemoth, only without truly grasping its depth and the theological reversals of the last centuries.
Reminds me of the adage "Shrewd as serpents and harmless as doves" with regards to dealing with people in power. You don't need to have a knee-jerk antipathy to power that is going to put you in needless danger, but you need to find ways to maneuver your community to be able to live your faith in peace. Working within a regime where you it's technically illegal to live your faith can even work if there is a implicit understanding they will just look the other way.
Once there is a totalitarian society that has your faith on the crosshairs, multi-faceted action is the only way forward, and will involve action most people will find distasteful.
I am reminded of Bonhoeffer’s example and Letter to the American Churchy by Eric Metaxas. How does voting fit in to this discussion? Do you think it perpetuates the power-axis or is that too cynical and unbiblical?
The major problem facing society is the erosion of the sanctions that are imposed by the state especially in our urban areas. The areas of civic life where this erosion is most clearly seen is in crime and homelessness. Progressive prosecutors have raised the minimum value to prosecute shoplifting to $1000 in many cities with the obvious result of gangs of criminals taking full advantage of that ridiculous limit. The ending of stop and frisk policing has resulted in a flood of black on black, black on Asian, and black on white violence including homicides. Anyone in an urban area who watches the nightly news knows this is true but no one mentions it.
The homeless, largely drug addicted and/or mentally ill are also allowed to degrade the quality of life of productive citizens because no one will say: “no, you can’t camp anywhere you want”, “no, you can’t shoot up and leave your used needles lying around”, “no, you can’t shit in our streets”. Someone has to start saying NO to both groups backed up by real action if we are to survive as a civilized society.
Certainly makes me re-think the revisionist version of "medival" history...especially all the parts of continually trying to re-establish the roman empire as the "holy roman empire" etc. Could there by any application of Judges here? Also, how would ethnicities/races be mapped onto this concept? The America the reginvangelicals support was largely a purified northern european concensus, taking what was good from each one of those people groups. What is it now except a hollow shell producing war and worthless fiat currency...
Correct, the development of a separate Christian Political consciousness which runs intertwined but not directly connected to the church needs to be revived, I say revived because most of what you described already existed during most of the Middle Ages and early modern period as well as parts of the modern period, a key element in this undertaking would to organize unofficial but strong and tightly connected religious Mannerbund or “brotherhoods of men” who all share (at least) the broader common Christian religion, and ideally, are part of the same denomination, however due to the decentralized nature of this order overlaps between denominations should be tolerated for “membership”, no matter the specifics, what these brotherhoods would consist off can be thought of as simultaneously small business alliances, pledges of assistance between members, a preference within these groups to offer positions and assistance to the descendants and families of other members in whatever way possible: a trade course program, trade discounts when buying in each others stores, community voluntary work, a common gym membership, local businesses apprenticeships, etc.
This alone would already go a long way into establishing a conscience of “brotherhood” and this has already been happening organically in many parts of society and in many different societies as men realize their governments and cultures seem to hold distaste and often sheer hatred for everything they hold dear and want from life, although this is a phenomenon not uniquely happening within the Christian sphere of influence, as a Christian myself, I think it would be wise to be ahead of the curve and capitalize on these parallel society formations early.
I've been thinking of this as well, but in terms of guilds. Many of the earliest forms of guilds were Christians banding together against foreign invaders where the state was unable to protect them. I heard the phrase "mutual self-help for the purpose of neighbourly love" and I think that's an excellent basis for an institution, separate from the Church, that could rightly weild the sword. As we start to build this "parallel polis" we should look to ancient forms, rather than try to reinvent the wheel.
This book lays out what guilds were for, and how they could be useful to us today (it was published in 1870). It also includes the ordinances of early guilds for reference. It isn’t the best copy, but it’s what I could find. The introduction alone is worth a read: https://archive.org/details/englishgildsorig00smit/page/n7/mode/2up
I wholeheartedly encourage you to write an essay on it, I’d appreciate a broader explanation on the subject and I wager you would write a good and well thought out piece.
Thanks for the encouragement. I don't think I have my mind fully wrapped around it yet, but trying to write about it may be the way to make that happen.
Appreciate this article, thank you. It connects some dots!
Have you read The Subversion of Christianity by Ellul?
His take on the history of Christian-religion and its role in Western societies helps flesh out a response by Christians regardless of the moral/political status of the nation.
• The “evangelical” support for Trump prior to the 2016 GOP primaries was minuscule.
WORLD Magazine:
“Pundits have written abundantly about evangelical support of Donald Trump, but they’ve mostly gotten it wrong. WORLD’s running survey of evangelical leaders in 2015 showed almost zero initial support for Trump. Not until his ascension left him as the only alternative to Hillary Clinton did he pick up broad support from church-going evangelicals, and the reason was obvious: the Supreme Court.
But weren’t evangelicals his key supporters during the crucial months in late 2015 and early 2016? Here’s where some fascinating work by Timothy Carney in his new book, Alienated America (Harper, 2019), breaks down the data and exposes the mistake that has taken hold. Carney’s summary: “The best way to describe Trump’s support in the Republican primaries—when he was running against the likes of Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, John Kasich—would be: white evangelicals who do not go to church.”
• But in the 2016 general election, once Trump was the last exit, the only real alternative to Secretary Clinton, I’d wager that many of those listed on that February 2016 National Review cover did vote for him. The true and faithful NeverTrumpers willing to resign themselves to HRC or Biden were, and are, I suspect, a rather smaller number, even at NR.
• Just prices? Just wages? Even if for the sake of argument we accept this concept of justice, how would these even be knowable in a changing competitive market? Where will you find the seer who can plausibly say, “Yes, I can peer into the universe and come up with a figure, it’s exactly twenty-two dollars and fifty-three cents. Today.” If you personally think Christian faithfulness requires what I think of as resuscitation of Medieval or Mercantilist mistakes that is fine. But I don’t think you can Biblically claim the rest of us shouldn’t learn from Adam Smith (of course, in the case of a regulated utility, an approximation of a market price is sought, one that attempts to reconcile shareholder returns, future investment, and consumer affordability. Still, no one claims that “oh, 17 cents per kilowatt is a just price, but 18 cents is obviously unjust”
Sphere Sovereignty is a critical concept in the discussion. The Founders understood that and attempted to minimize the points of conflict by minimizing government. They would not be surprised to see what has become of their work.
Individual Christians must determine who they serve while being faithful to God's command to obey the leaders He has placed over us. The local church, as you note, is the place this must be worked out in practice. Hopefully networks of churches will be developed to encourage and support each other.
"Whom do you serve?" remains the pressing question of the day.
Yes!
I mentioned something similar to Auron MacIntyre at last year's Scyldings' Nashville Conference. It struck me as a strange coincidence that the dissident right was taking this point from de Maistre while independently the neo-Calvinists were justifying Christian Nationalism based upon sphere sovereignty from Kuyper. I haven't read Contra Mundum by Thomas Isham, but I'm hoping there's a direct link there between the two.
I should do a reading of the Stone Lectures for the Substack. I think people would appreciate it.
Jason, I'm very familiar with the passages you are referencing here, and your interpretation of them is quite common. In light of the above article, how would you defend this interpretation? Is it really true that God has placed those leaders over you who hate you and wish to see you suffer? I hear this interpretation taught most by those leaders who are in many other ways attempting to bend Biblical/Christian teaching into the current power structure, as the article describes. It just seems so obviously contradictory to conclude that God has given us leaders who demand we renounce Him. There must be some better explanation than, "Determine who you serve while... obeying the leaders," which is the literal meaning of what you said above. This seems to mean you have chosen to obey men rather than God, but I doubt you're aware of this contradiction, or have a better explanation of what you mean. Your thoughts?
Tough sledding there, for sure. "My ways are not your ways and my thoughts are not your thoughts" is helpful in understanding that it is not possible for us to comprehend God nor begin to understand how He works His will in all things. That may seem a cop out but I don't believe it is rational to expect to comprehend the infinite God. He says He sets rulers up and takes them down. We also know that He often gives us what we want and sometimes what we deserve; and still is not thwarted in His sovereign will.
The concept of sphere sovereignty, as I understand it, follows Scripture teaching that we are to respect and pray for our leaders, and obey them to the extent they do not usurp the prerogatives of God. In that case, it is clear that we are to obey God rather than man. Where we lack wisdom on the margins, we are to seek it and God has promised to give freely.
I claim only to see such matters through a glass darkly but hope this is helpful to your thinking.
Re my question you reference; I borrowed Saruman's question of the Urik Hai. Will you serve God or man? That is the question in every age.
Blessings
This is a fantastic piece. it gives me a framework to talk about my own thoughts, which are largely aligned with yours. it's definitely a discombobulating time to be a Christian, but I see a few reasons for hope (not calling you a doomer, I've just been trying to reflect on positive things more lately):
1) Federalism lends itself to enclaves where the minority opinion can remain in force (this is currently happening with abortion), and states/counties may be natural kingly successors should a falling out with the federal government occur.
2) if federalism doesn't work out, at least we're not alone in this world. We likely have much to learn from our Middle and Far Eastern brethren.
Thanks for writing!
Glad it resonated with you. Yes there are embedded ideas in the American ethos that can be stirred up and built on. These are not entirely alien or new concepts.
https://open.substack.com/pub/douglasfarrow/p/break-out-into-true-liberty? Douglas Farrow is simultaneously exploring similar issues.
Rodney Stark, Rise of Christianity provides a highly germane perspective on transformation of Empire, from within. Not much about political violence, though. I can dig out a summary of it, if requested.
Interesting to see earlier generations of law makers took the Christian foundation of the state as a given so did not need to particularly develop it. As secular challenges have come in, academia and civil society in general has become a place where a more articulate counter-cultural Christianity is developed.
Exactly.
The question of abortion can hardly matter within the wider aseptic order of birth and financial union. In the same way, Christian advocacy of an indirect power can only be corrupted by the forces of democratic man, who has captured the earth and achieved the decisive rule of God over friends and enemies. Where is the papal state to which one's political faith may be offered?
Perhaps why you do not clarify what the dominant governing structures are, how the indirect power is to establish equalizing laws, or how your own activism resists "blowing off steam".
To establish a political theology today one would first have to confront Christian titanism, which is foremost a meeting of nihilism and organisationalism, democracy's automatic and self-legitimising type of 'protection' (it is important here to not imprint classical rules onto a non-classical system). The Catholic order proceeds through decay, and the Protestant through mummification. To advocate for an indirect power risks increasing this process. In short, a protest theology threatens a return to the problem of the Behemoth, only without truly grasping its depth and the theological reversals of the last centuries.
Reminds me of the adage "Shrewd as serpents and harmless as doves" with regards to dealing with people in power. You don't need to have a knee-jerk antipathy to power that is going to put you in needless danger, but you need to find ways to maneuver your community to be able to live your faith in peace. Working within a regime where you it's technically illegal to live your faith can even work if there is a implicit understanding they will just look the other way.
Once there is a totalitarian society that has your faith on the crosshairs, multi-faceted action is the only way forward, and will involve action most people will find distasteful.
I am reminded of Bonhoeffer’s example and Letter to the American Churchy by Eric Metaxas. How does voting fit in to this discussion? Do you think it perpetuates the power-axis or is that too cynical and unbiblical?
There's no issue working with a government that supports your interests, even if not totally aligned. It's why Syrian Christians support Assad.
The major problem facing society is the erosion of the sanctions that are imposed by the state especially in our urban areas. The areas of civic life where this erosion is most clearly seen is in crime and homelessness. Progressive prosecutors have raised the minimum value to prosecute shoplifting to $1000 in many cities with the obvious result of gangs of criminals taking full advantage of that ridiculous limit. The ending of stop and frisk policing has resulted in a flood of black on black, black on Asian, and black on white violence including homicides. Anyone in an urban area who watches the nightly news knows this is true but no one mentions it.
The homeless, largely drug addicted and/or mentally ill are also allowed to degrade the quality of life of productive citizens because no one will say: “no, you can’t camp anywhere you want”, “no, you can’t shoot up and leave your used needles lying around”, “no, you can’t shit in our streets”. Someone has to start saying NO to both groups backed up by real action if we are to survive as a civilized society.
Certainly makes me re-think the revisionist version of "medival" history...especially all the parts of continually trying to re-establish the roman empire as the "holy roman empire" etc. Could there by any application of Judges here? Also, how would ethnicities/races be mapped onto this concept? The America the reginvangelicals support was largely a purified northern european concensus, taking what was good from each one of those people groups. What is it now except a hollow shell producing war and worthless fiat currency...
Correct, the development of a separate Christian Political consciousness which runs intertwined but not directly connected to the church needs to be revived, I say revived because most of what you described already existed during most of the Middle Ages and early modern period as well as parts of the modern period, a key element in this undertaking would to organize unofficial but strong and tightly connected religious Mannerbund or “brotherhoods of men” who all share (at least) the broader common Christian religion, and ideally, are part of the same denomination, however due to the decentralized nature of this order overlaps between denominations should be tolerated for “membership”, no matter the specifics, what these brotherhoods would consist off can be thought of as simultaneously small business alliances, pledges of assistance between members, a preference within these groups to offer positions and assistance to the descendants and families of other members in whatever way possible: a trade course program, trade discounts when buying in each others stores, community voluntary work, a common gym membership, local businesses apprenticeships, etc.
This alone would already go a long way into establishing a conscience of “brotherhood” and this has already been happening organically in many parts of society and in many different societies as men realize their governments and cultures seem to hold distaste and often sheer hatred for everything they hold dear and want from life, although this is a phenomenon not uniquely happening within the Christian sphere of influence, as a Christian myself, I think it would be wise to be ahead of the curve and capitalize on these parallel society formations early.
I've been thinking of this as well, but in terms of guilds. Many of the earliest forms of guilds were Christians banding together against foreign invaders where the state was unable to protect them. I heard the phrase "mutual self-help for the purpose of neighbourly love" and I think that's an excellent basis for an institution, separate from the Church, that could rightly weild the sword. As we start to build this "parallel polis" we should look to ancient forms, rather than try to reinvent the wheel.
Wow. That is it!
This book lays out what guilds were for, and how they could be useful to us today (it was published in 1870). It also includes the ordinances of early guilds for reference. It isn’t the best copy, but it’s what I could find. The introduction alone is worth a read: https://archive.org/details/englishgildsorig00smit/page/n7/mode/2up
I wholeheartedly encourage you to write an essay on it, I’d appreciate a broader explanation on the subject and I wager you would write a good and well thought out piece.
Thanks for the encouragement. I don't think I have my mind fully wrapped around it yet, but trying to write about it may be the way to make that happen.
Yes, the farther ahead of the curve we are the better.
If you want a concrete example of this, just look at the split of the United Methodist Church.
The church in Armenia is fighting this battle right now.
Appreciate this article, thank you. It connects some dots!
Have you read The Subversion of Christianity by Ellul?
His take on the history of Christian-religion and its role in Western societies helps flesh out a response by Christians regardless of the moral/political status of the nation.
https://www.amazon.com/Subversion-Christianity-Jacques-Ellul-Legacy/dp/1606089749
• The “evangelical” support for Trump prior to the 2016 GOP primaries was minuscule.
WORLD Magazine:
“Pundits have written abundantly about evangelical support of Donald Trump, but they’ve mostly gotten it wrong. WORLD’s running survey of evangelical leaders in 2015 showed almost zero initial support for Trump. Not until his ascension left him as the only alternative to Hillary Clinton did he pick up broad support from church-going evangelicals, and the reason was obvious: the Supreme Court.
But weren’t evangelicals his key supporters during the crucial months in late 2015 and early 2016? Here’s where some fascinating work by Timothy Carney in his new book, Alienated America (Harper, 2019), breaks down the data and exposes the mistake that has taken hold. Carney’s summary: “The best way to describe Trump’s support in the Republican primaries—when he was running against the likes of Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, John Kasich—would be: white evangelicals who do not go to church.”
https://wng.org/articles/unchurched-election-1617297412
• But in the 2016 general election, once Trump was the last exit, the only real alternative to Secretary Clinton, I’d wager that many of those listed on that February 2016 National Review cover did vote for him. The true and faithful NeverTrumpers willing to resign themselves to HRC or Biden were, and are, I suspect, a rather smaller number, even at NR.
• Just prices? Just wages? Even if for the sake of argument we accept this concept of justice, how would these even be knowable in a changing competitive market? Where will you find the seer who can plausibly say, “Yes, I can peer into the universe and come up with a figure, it’s exactly twenty-two dollars and fifty-three cents. Today.” If you personally think Christian faithfulness requires what I think of as resuscitation of Medieval or Mercantilist mistakes that is fine. But I don’t think you can Biblically claim the rest of us shouldn’t learn from Adam Smith (of course, in the case of a regulated utility, an approximation of a market price is sought, one that attempts to reconcile shareholder returns, future investment, and consumer affordability. Still, no one claims that “oh, 17 cents per kilowatt is a just price, but 18 cents is obviously unjust”
The church has always been a way to legitimize institutional power. Nothing new under the sun.