Phil Johnson's recent tirade against a caricature of #ChristianNationalism is a perfect example of one major reason why a lot of (especially young) Christian men are flocking to less than wonderful guides and sources.
If solid Christian leaders don't start figuring out how to argue more honestly and humbly about a Christian engagement with a kind of social and political power that is divergent from the egalitarian theory of the last few generations, then don't be surprised when your young men start wearing Crusader gear and crying out for a Christian monarch.
Given the choice between anarcho-tyrannical, anti-Christian paganism and some form of nominal-Christian theocracy (the only two options Phil and critics like him seem to think we have at the moment), many would choose the latter. And who can blame them?
Yes, of course, the gospel and Christ's church are of highest importance! But does this mean Christians should care nothing for the good order of their homes, their neighborhoods, and their earthly homeland?
By the way, @Phil_Johnson_, I have the upmost respect and appreciation for you! I have benefitted much from your ministry over the years, and I count you among the most solid of brethren in the fight for the gospel of Christ.
I've never understood this argument.
"It didn't last!"
Okay. Does your car last if you never change the oil?
Do you give up if your kid disobeys again after discipline?
You ate yesterday but got hungry again today????
FOOD DOESN'T WORK!
It's quite stupid.
What grew Christianity more… persecution by antichrist Judeo-Bolsheviks, or baptized Kings and Emperors who brought the gospel to their nations and empires under their political headship?
Ah, well I'm glad it was offered. Just seemed like a natural fit given the Canon published the first book. But they do seem to have diverged somewhat since then, so I can understand Wolfe not wanting to write for it. Especially since the Report probably already has everything he'd say anyway.
As a modern Christian, if you disagree with the great majority of the Christian tradition on a particular topic, the amount of smugness in your opinion should be kept to an absolute minimum. And you certainly shouldn't act like your view is the "obviously biblical" one which can be proven with a single verse.
(Major verses/concepts abused in this way include: the imago dei, Galatians 3:28, John 3:16, etc.)
Brothers and sisters, I implore you: There has never been a better time to start watching my series Against Biblicism (link in comment below). And no, the mind-world-text interaction concerning the Reformed doctrine here is not “kinda like how” a separation of church and state is read into the Constitution.
The PCA report exactly mirrors what I’ve said here for years: Ordo Amoris is real and necessary as resource management for duties/loves.
And there’s zero duty to your entire skin color above any other, when the biblical idea of family is smaller and genetics get wonky (especially for Americans) and the image of God is universal.