The world could care less about how you define terms in your Christian circles. Just don’t take your views into the public square. If they choose to define Christian Nationalism as a nation influenced by Christians that promote Christian morality because they believe in the God of the Bible, then we will have to live with their definition, and we will have to live with any consequences that come from that definition.

One of the interesting dynamics in the debate over Christian Nationalism is that there has been no acceptable definition of what it would look like if it were implemented in our nation.  Various evangelical and reformed protagonists in this debate have framed various scenarios of Christian Nationalism from a time-capsule approach of merely returning to the Eisenhower era to the portrait approach of monarchial tyrants in high places of the civil government.  How about a Chrisitan Prince?
The worst-case fear is that religious persecution would rise again as it did in Europe just a few hundred years ago.  Some Baptists today are afraid they might be put in jail under a Presbyterian ruler; and the first amendment, the right to free speech, would cease to exist. Theonomists would be in charge, and some young children would be put to death by stoning. As a theonomist and a clergyman in the PCA who follows both sides of this debate, I am aghast at the ridiculous characterizations of proponents of Christian Nationalism, on both sides.
Listen up! It would appear now that we evangelicals do not need to define Christian Nationalism anymore.  There is no need for any more books or articles on the topic.  Our enemies in the world have done it for us.  In speaking of Christian Nationalists, Heidi Przybyla, a journalist with the popular Politico has said “that they [Christian Nationalists] believe that our rights as Americans, as all human beings, don’t come from any earthly authority.”  She went on to say that Christian Nationalists believe that our “rights don’t come from Congress, they don’t come from the Supreme Court, they come from God.”  Well, there you go—a definition of Christian Nationalism without all the minutia of what one would look like in detail. We Reformed guys are into the details too much anyway.
My first reaction to this new definition of Christian Nationalism is that maybe Ms. Przybyla forgot to read the Declaration of Independence where our forefathers declared that “all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Our rights do come from God and not from man.
The Creator God of America in 1776 was the Trinitarian God of the Bible. At one time America was a Christian nation.  Christian nationalism gave rise to both a robust freedom of religion and the freedom of the press—two fundamental bullworks of what has been called American exceptionalism.  American Christian Nationalism even protected the right of free speech of men who were atheists.
So, to put it simply, Christian Nationalists believe in a nation where the rights and responsibilities of the people are derived from God himself, and not simply from a Congress that has become irrelevant, or a Supreme Court gone rogue, or even a neutral Constitution that can be interpreted according to the fleeting ideas of autonomous men.
What am I trying to say to evangelical and reformed Christians?  We’re all Christian Nationalists now!  If you believe that the laws of our nation-state should reflect, at a minimum, the last six of the ten commandments of the Bible, then you are a Christian Nationalist. If you vote for any candidate for public office who shares your views, then you are a Christian Nationalist.
For example, if you believe that abortion is the unlawful taking of human life because the Bible says so, then you are a Christian Nationalist.  If you believe that homosexual marriage is sinful because the Bible says so, then you are a Christian Nationalist. If you believe that God created mankind as male and female, and the Bible forbids a multi-binary identity, then you are a Christian Nationalist.  If you believe it is your right to say publicly that “Christ is King,” then you are a Christian Nationalist.
Now, maybe you disagree with this definition.  Maybe you don’t like it.  Maybe you think it is too simple.  Well, it really does not matter what you believe, or what you like, or what you think.  We evangelicals don’t make the rules anymore nor do we have the authority to create definitions in the public square.  Write all the books you want and publish all the articles you want.  You will add nothing to the public debate.  In the mind of the world, you are no longer a contributor to the public dialogue. You are only a threat to them.
Just remember that the world controls the definitions and what is allowed to be spoken in the public conversation.  You are safe within the walls of your church sanctuary. They could care less about how you define terms in your Christian circles. Just don’t take your views into the public square. If they choose to define Christian Nationalism as a nation influenced by Christians that promote Christian morality because they believe in the God of the Bible, then we will have to live with their definition, and we will have to live with any consequences that come from that definition.
Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.
Related Posts:

God created man to first work, not to worship.  Work was the beginning of his worship. Work must not be viewed as a utilitarian instrument (for example, a means to give more to the church), but work itself is a holy ministry toward others in that work is producing goods and services that provide for the needs, comfort, and joy of others.  Again, in my opinion, if the first half of the 4th commandment (working six days) received as much attention as the second half (resting one day), then the kingdom of God would be greatly advanced.

David Bahnsen in his latest book Full-Time: Work and The Meaning of Life challenges a few theological presuppositions prominent in the modern evangelical and reformed world regarding the relationship between faith and work. This also includes an interesting chapter on the rather new concept (over the course of history) of retirement.
David is the son of the late Dr. Greg Bahnsen, well known in reformed circles as a scholar, and who is often associated with the theological views of Theonomy.  After David’s father died at a young age, David tells the reader in the book that he lost his best friend while just a young college student. This was a very difficult time in his life, and maybe the most helpful therapy, besides his faith, in dealing with his loss was work.  And work he did!
David is today the founder, Managing Partner, and Chief Investment Officer of the Bahnsen Group, a private wealth management firm managing over $4.5 billion in client assets.  For those familiar with the financial world, he is a regular guest on several national media outlets such as Fox Business, CNBC, Bloomberg, and Fox News.
Because of his love for Christ’s Church, especially as it is expressed in the reformed faith, he deals with some suspect theological assumptions that come from modern pulpits (often unawares) regarding the place of work and retirement in the life of every Christian.
David is very balanced in his book.  By balanced I mean he is always predicting potential objections to his statements and qualifying them so as not to be misinterpreted as one who is rushing off into some extreme view.  I call this the “However Rule.”  I have written enough to know that some of the most important terms in writing are words like however, but, or on the other hand.
Readers can quickly draw errant deductions from a written statement, and a good writer will know when and how to neutralize those false deductions. He will then add qualifying statements.  In other words [yes, I am a writer too], David is very balanced in the book, qualifying his stated views where there might be a temptation to mis-understand him.
So, what are some of the errant suppositions about work that are so prevalent today in the reformed and evangelical world?  I think in answering these questions, it should be noted that he begins in the Book of Genesis and not in the New Testament.  He has what some have termed a Creational Worldview (see Creational Worldview – An Introduction by P. Andrew Sandlin). Let me cover just a few of his themes in the book.

The Prodigal Son in the Basement Playing Video Games

He offers several reasons for this phenomenon including the societal characteristics of a decline in family values, and an increase in both loneliness and isolation. Later, he looks at the labor-participation rate today as compared to that of many years ago.  The conclusion is heart-shattering.
In my own opinion, I believe what the modern church may be missing is that work with purpose may be the best medicine to prevent depression. It may be the best antidote, far exceeding anti-depressants and therapy.  Certainly, work is not the answer to every problem, but we need to reevaluate its critical importance in the arena of mental health. I think the modern church has relegated work to a material necessity which is juxtaposed to what is considered the higher realm of true spirituality. This is contradictory to the purpose of the creation of man in Genesis which was to work in a material world.

Work is Not the Curse in Genesis

After the Fall, childbearing for the woman became very difficult, however, children were not the curse of God but the pain in labor was the curse.  Children are a blessing.  Likewise, after the Fall work became accompanied by the sweat of the brow, thorns, and thistles.  However, work itself was not a curse, but rather the sweat, the thorns, and the thistles were the curse.  Work was given to provide man with purpose, identity, and dignity.  Redemption in Christ restores that purpose given before the Fall.
God created man to first work, not to worship.  Work was the beginning of his worship. Work must not be viewed as a utilitarian instrument (for example, a means to give more to the church), but work itself is a holy ministry toward others in that work is producing goods and services that provide for the needs, comfort, and joy of others.  Again, in my opinion, if the first half of the 4th commandment (working six days) received as much attention as the second half (resting one day), then the kingdom of God would be greatly advanced.

What About the Clergy Work Ethic?

I will not say much about this theme.  Indeed, most pastors are hard-working men, but in some circles, slackness is becoming a problem. The change in church structure often leaves men preaching almost half the time during the week as compared to their ministerial forefathers. The larger the church the greater the temptation.  The title of this chapter in his book is “Pouting Pulpits & Part-time Pastors.”

The Retirement Disaster

David calls retirement a 30-year vacation. For some of us who could not retire until age 65, it could be viewed more as 10-year to15-year vacation. Yes, people do need to slow down as they get older, but to stop working can be a bad as death itself. I could never stop working.  I think I work as much today (in my late 70’s) as I ever did.
Many years ago, there were no retirement plans.  You retire when you died.  Today, work is for the purpose of “getting to the point you do not have to work.” Although the modern world has created many blessings that allow us to live longer and heathier, the loss of older men in the workforce is also the loss of wisdom and mentorship in the workforce.  David believes this is a great loss.

The Problem with the Virtual (Home) Workplace

Although this topic is included as an appendix in the Book, David’s views on working from home as opposed to going to the office are interesting.  He is against it.  You may not agree with him on this, but he makes several good points.
In conclusion, I have only covered a few parts of the main points in his Book. I have not even touched on his excellent analysis of how successful Chirstian men deal with the envy of others, or how a Christian man of wealth may be tempted to wallow in guilt because of his success.  My goal is to just give you enough bait to catch your attention.
To get the rest of the story, I do highly recommend this book.  It would be an excellent source for a Bible Study, especially for men.  Our view of work is very important since we do so much of it.  The book contains much wisdom which David himself has gained over the years as he went from working in a movie theatre at 15 years of age to a multi-billion-dollar financial advisor.  Being raised in the home of a preacher and scholar who was shunned by so many of his own colleagues teaches a son a great deal too. You need to buy the book and work at reading it.
Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.
Related Posts:

The religion of Americanism teaches us that God’s law is not valid outside of the church; maybe the last six of the Ten Commandments are valid (and even that is considered debatable), but certainly not the first four.  Modern theologians like to divide the ten commandments into parts, as if God has two minds.  We are told that the Law was only given to Israel, and thus today it is only for the visible church.  This comes from both evangelical pulpits and from Civics 101 in public education. There is not much difference between the two.

Americanism is the name I have given to a new dominant religion in our beloved nation.  It is a final reference point for almost every moral and political issue, and it has the endorsement of most all conservative pastors in this country. To challenge this new religion means a quick cancellation, especially in evangelical circles.
This new religion is mostly derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The religion of Americanism interprets the First Amendment as guaranteeing the right of every American citizen to say anything they want to say (except a few things like shouting fire in a public place, or racial slurs), to turn art into blasphemy (Christ in a bottle of urine), or to worship any god of their own choosing (including Allah).
It also protects the right of men to express themselves physically as women, the right of BLM to destroy private property in public protests, the right to produce and distribute pornography, and the right for university students to call for genocide.  It protects the right of anyone to burn the American flag.  It protects the right to erect Satanic idols in state capitol buildings.  It protects the rights of Drag Queens to read stories to children in public libraries.  It protects debauchery.  And yet, in this new religion of Americanism, the First Amendment is still considered sacred even by leading evangelicals.
The protection of debauchery was never the intent of our founding fathers. The First Amendment was created to limit the power of the Congress, and not the power of the individual States.  At the time of the adoption of the First Amendment, most states had either officially or unofficially adopted the Christian Faith as the State religion. State legislators could establish an official religion, but Congress could not.  State churches were legal, but a national church was not.  There would be no Church of the United States as there was a Church of England across the pond. Thus, Congress was prohibited from establishing a national church, but States had every right to establish a State Church.  States were respected as sovereign entities. This was a long time ago, but it demonstrates the value of studying history.
The Church of England was the official church in the State of Virginia.  State taxes were used to pay the Anglican clergymen, who alone were allowed to preach in the Commonwealth.  Soon, however, both Baptists and Presbyterians were given the freedom to preach (without going to jail).  The First Amendment became a basis for guaranteeing free speech to all Christian Protestants (not all religions).  The First Amendment was still rightly understood.
However, things have changed.  The First Amendment may soon be used to curtail the free speech of Christians because Christian morals are in direct opposition to the public morals of the day. This is already happening in universities and corporations. Outside the safety of the visible church, employees of both colleges and businesses are walking around on eggshells afraid that they might use the wrong pronoun and put their jobs in jeopardy with a visit from the DEI police.
The problem with the First Amendment as presently interpreted is that it contradicts the First Commandment.  The First Commandment says, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” God does not tolerate competition.  A First Amendment that allows for gods other than the God of the Bible to be worshiped is contrary to the First Commandment. The First Commandment also summarizes the other nine Commandments.  Neither does God tolerate decadence.  Under the First Commandment, not only are the worship of all other gods forbidden, but derivative events like gay-pride parades would be prohibited. The riotous destruction of private or public property would be forbidden.  Drag Queens in public would be forbidden. And on and on!
Baptists give strong devotion to the First Amendment because they identify themselves with a history of persecution.  They believe that the First Amendment protects their rights to believe and preach according to their own consciences.  They are big supporters of Americanism.  However, I believe they need to get beyond the Munster cages of the 16th century and realize that with their large numbers in America today, the roles would be reversed in a hypothetical theocracy. The vision of a Baptist Prince is more realistic in our day than a Presbyterian Prince.  However, to be more sensible, I think all of us are all in the same boat now.
More broadly speaking Americanism finds its hope in the United States Constitution.  The only problem with this is that the meaning of the Constitution cannot be predicted anymore.  Whoever thought just fifty years ago that the rights to abortion and homosexual marriage would be discovered in the Constitution?  The Constitution only means what five Supreme Court judges in black robes say what it means. Even as frightening, the United States Congress no longer has any realistic function.  Civil power is now in the hands of either a sitting President or a bureaucracy of unelected college graduates from elite and secular universities. Christians are expected to leave the public square and wait for either death or the rapture, whichever comes first.
Americanism also puts a great amount of faith in democracy, where the people vote to decide who will hold office and thus, and consequently, what will be considered publicly right and wrong in our nation.  However, even that hope now is teetering.  So many people have lost their confidence in the integrity of elections that this tenet of Americanism is dying.
Americanism believes in American exceptionalism. Indeed, we have seen our glory days, but many other nations in the world now view America as the great whore. We are still building on the capital from the past, but decadent immorality has painted us as a prostitute on the world stage. We lost admiration a long time ago. Putin’s Russia or Mao’s China may both be a holy step above us because they have banned homosexual marriage and transgenderism.  Militarism for the sake of securing democracy around the world is now viewed as a failure.  It was a recipe for death, and has only created more enemies than friends.
The religion of Americanism teaches us that God’s law is not valid outside of the church; maybe the last six of the Ten Commandments are valid (and even that is considered debatable), but certainly not the first four.  Modern theologians like to divide the ten commandments into parts, as if God has two minds.  We are told that the Law was only given to Israel, and thus today it is only for the visible church.  This comes from both evangelical pulpits and from Civics 101 in public education. There is not much difference between the two.
The only problem with this is that it is not true.  Paul in Romans 13 says plainly that the civil magistrate is a servant of God and is to promote good and restrain evil.  Paul wrote this while living under a Roman hegemony, looking forward to the day when all nations would be Christianized through the preaching of a gospel that would teach them to obey God’s law, as Jesus had spoken.  Good and evil can only be defined by God’s law—all of it, including the first four commandments.
Our forefathers understood this. They knew that the United Sates would not survive apart from being a Christian nation.  John Adams reflected this when he said that “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”  By the word religious, he was referring to Christianity.  Although I believe that the Enlightenment had a major impact on our founding forefathers, they still maintained enough Christian heritage to understand that Christianity must be the foundation of this nation or this nation will perish.
In a Christian nation, foreigners from other nations are welcome to enjoy the blessings of God with us, but they would not be allowed to worship their gods in public within the boundaries of our country. God’s goodness to us might be an avenue for their conversion. What a blessing it would be to preach the gospel to them in such a context.
What am I saying?  I am saying that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as presently interpreted by most institutions including the church is in direct opposition to the First Commandment.  Yes, this is a radical statement, but we live in radical times when our presuppositions must be reexamined. Yes, it is revolutionary.  But is it true?  That is the question.
Since the dominant religion of America moved from Christianity to Americanism, we are watching the demise of this nation. We are under attack by Cultural Marxism, and the religion of Americanism will not protect Christians.  As a matter of fact, it will be used against them.
Under the guise of the Constitution, we have brought the Middle East and her wars to America.  We dilute our heritage with illegal immigration.  We have substituted a constitutional republic with tyranny.  We have declared that all gods are equal, contrary to the First Commandment of God. We once had a Christian nation, but now we have sanctioned polytheism. God hates polytheism.  He always has.
I know it is too late to do anything about it, save for a biblical revival and reformation, but I do pray that the America I knew as a child will survive.  I’m not calling for a revolution.  I’m only identifying the problems. When future generations ask what went wrong with the American Experiment, I hope they will learn from our mistakes.
Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.
Related Posts:

Modern America is now Gomorrah in the hands of Cultural Marxists.  We tend to forget and ignore the fact that Marxism itself has a history, and its history always results in the shedding of the blood of millions of people.  We must be pro-life, not pro-death, even beyond the womb.  For non-cultural theologians, their hope may be in believing that persecution is the best way to heaven.  For cultural theologians, persecution may be their calling, too, but in time to come, the Kingdom of God will come to earth in its fullness, and the glory of the Lord will cover the earth as the waters cover the sea, all before the second coming of Christ.

I have never met Doug Wilson personally.  I have been present twice when he spoke, once at the Auburn Avenue Conference in 2002 in Monroe, Louisiana, and then twenty years later at the Fight, Laugh, Feast (FLF) Conference in 2022 in Knoxville, Tennessee.  In his book on the Book of Revelation he cites two times from my book on the Book of Revelation, so I know he has read at least one of my books.  When I was a local church pastor, I used his book on marriage (Reforming Marriage) often in marital counseling. It was, and maybe still is in my opinion, the best available.  I listen to his YouTube presentations on occasion, but I find that he can be difficult to follow because his vocabulary and phraseology seem to be channeling either the genre of G. K. Chesterton or C. S. Lewis, two of his heroes.  I find this frustrating.  Yet, his impact on the modern evangelical and reformed church cannot be denied.
I am older than Doug Wilson, and I was probably reading Rev. Rousas Rushdoony and Dr. Gary North long before he was.  I personally knew both Rushdoony and North.  Thus, I am not one of Wilson’s warrior children as Mr. Gordon classifies in his article (See Wilson’s Warrior Children by Chris Gordon, December 11, 2023).  I call myself one of Rushdoony’s warrior children. The main point of contention with Wilson from Rushdoony’s children is over the legitimacy of natural law in Stephen Wolfe’s book, The Case for Christian Nationalism published by Wilson’s Canon Press.
Mr. Gordon in the title of his article plays off Professor John Frame’s article Machen’s Warrior Children. However, I think he misses the mark because Frame deals in his presentation with all the controversies (21 of them) that divided those who followed Machen.  Wilson’s children are not battling each other, at least not currently.  The Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC), which originates in Moscow, Idaho, portrays an ecumenical spirit of unity which includes those from Reformed Baptist backgrounds. The Church as a denomination has its own identity and communion now apart from Wilson.
I do think, however, that Gordon gets to the important point about Wilson and his followers.  Gordon deals more with substance than form, and I think he is right on target here. There is something missing in the modern Reformed world, and a multiplicity of young men are flocking to Wilson and others to fill that vacuum.  It is more than just a mood.
As a balance, before I say anything else, I should mention several church leaders and conferences that add much to the discussion of reformed theology and piety today. They are godly men.  These godly men are included in Gospel Reformation Network (GRN), Presbycast, Together for the Gospel (T4G), The Founder’s Ministry of the Sword and the Trowel (TS&TT), and the G3 Ministries (Gospel, Grace, and Glory), to name a few. These represent prominent pastors, many of large churches, and their numerous conferences, webpages, and podcasts.  I call these non-cultural theologians. They indeed have much to offer, but the problem is that they are not dealing with the issues that are drawing young men like a magnet to Wilson and Moscow.
Actually, the theological engine that propels Wilson and Moscow includes a much broader family than Wilson and Moscow.  Others include The Center for Cultural Leadership (CCL) headed by Dr. P. Andrew Sandlin, the Ezra Institute (Dr. Joe Boot), Apologia Ministries (Pastor Jeff Durbin), and Right Response Ministries (Pastor Joel Webbon).  I would also include (without his permission) Apologist and Reformed Baptist Dr. James White, a postmillennialist who interviewed Doug Wilson on the topic of Federal Vision.  I call these cultural theologians.
Many young men are not hearing from non-cultural theologians what they need in order to be good fathers and to be faithful in their callings in life outside of the church.  The application of God’s law which challenges the modern culture is missing. Thus, they often go home after church and get their needed supplements (as in vitamins) from cultural theologians via various social media outlets.  This might be a surprise to many non-cultural theologians, but it is happening.  Cultural ministries like Canon Press and the Crosspolitic programs are quickly growing in popularity.
Most Reformed pastors avoid crucial and popular issues that are raging outside the church sanctuary. They are probably not going to be dragged off to jail.  Their linear expository preaching somehow enables them to avoid certain important topics.  They are comfortable still fighting the heretics from the Reformation period and the old liberalism of J. Gresham Machen’s time (which need to be fought).  However, they are stuck in the past.  They are so saturated in the New Testament period; they forget that Christendom has enjoyed centuries of blessings after the close of the New Testament Canon.
We are watching the end of American Christendom in our own day.  There is a new enemy.  It is called Cultural Marxism, and this demon is at the doorway of our churches.  However, I fear that this new enemy is not even on the radar of most non-cultural theologians.  I am not even sure they have the skills to fight this enemy. Their seminary training did not equip them to deal with this.  The only way to gain the needed skills is to read outside the box.  Dealing with Cultural Marxism publicly certainly might divide the church.  As a former pastor, I know how important church unity is.  However, I was never afraid to preach on topics like the Bible and inflation (Theology in a Reece’s Cup) or on Wokism (Are You Woke?).
What then are the substantive issues?  Let me mention a few.

Eschatology is one issue. Optimistic eschatology brings hope on earth, even in the most desperate times. As Isaac Watts wrote in “Joy to the World,” the blessings of the gospel will spread as far as the curse is found. This is no place to present the case for postmillennialism.  All I need to do is mention that most professors at Old Princeton were postmillennialists.  According to Professor John Frame in his article on “Machen’s Warrior Children,” J. Gresham Machen was a postmillennialist.
Covenantalism is another issue. This is why these men put so much emphasis on the family.  Yes, it is better to be with Christ than live on in a world filled with so much pain, but many of us believe that the world is not coming to an end anytime soon.  Abraham was a stranger in a foreign land, not because he was in the flesh, but because he was in a land full of idols.  Any perspective without the hope of the blessings of the covenant to a thousand generations tends to slip into Neoplatonism and Escapism.

We have a responsibility to our grandchildren and great-grandchildren (you can tell my age here), and we pray that they will become leaders in their own callings, including even those who serve from county commissioner to the highest posts in civil government.  Politics is not the way to blessing.  Covenant faithfulness over generations to our children and our children’s children is the way to bring the fullness of the Kingdom of God to earth before Christ returns in all his glory to reign on a purified and earthly earth. When training up your children, be sure to teach them Christian systematics and apologetics. Make certain they understand the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

Kingdom incarnation is another issue. Jesus came announcing the presence of the Kingdom and not the gospel. The gospel was the instrument to a realized (not over-realized) Kingdom, but not the Kingdom itself.  Too, the Kingdom is greater than the church.  Wherever the law of the King reigns, there is the Kingdom.  This is why Jesus told us to pray, “Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”  Again, Machen was an example of this when he testified as a clergyman before a United States Senate and House Committee on the proposed Department of Education. He was being salt in the world.
Worship is another issue. Worship is a calling to focus on Christ and his work.  It is the worship of the Triune God, especially on the Lord’s Day.  However, it is also a call to battle as men exit the doors of the church—not just to fight sin in their own hearts but to tame sin in a world we see with our own eyes.  Men want to fight for their families.  They do not want to see them swallowed up with the wicked. The wicked will commit suicide and we do not want our children to go to the grave with them.  Worship prepares them for this battle.

The biggest opposition to Cultural Theologians is the Westminster West Seminary R2K proponents.  They promote the idea that the Bible is for the Church only, and has nothing to say to the Civil Magistrate.  The Civil Magistrate is bound to follow Natural Law only, and whatever the Civil Magistrate does is right because God has given him this authority apart from consulting the Holy Scriptures.  One of them has even pushed the idea that if the Civil Magistrate decides to kill Christians, he is doing the right thing because, after all, he is the Civil Magistrate.  Cultural Theologians find this appalling.
Non-cultural theologians are mission-minded.  However, what some of us find puzzling is that as we put more and more missionaries on the field to disciple other nations, we are more and more in this country dying as a Christian nation.  It is difficult to teach others to fly a plane when you have failed to fly one yourself.  The Church has lost its ability to be salt and light in America.  How then can we take the good news to the whole world when it seems that at home the Christian Faith is failing, and it is irrelevant outside the church sanctuary and personal devotions?
I have watched similar so-called movements as Wilson and Moscow in the past destroy themselves, whether it be the Tyler, Texas fiasco or the ministries of Mark Driscoll. However, things may now be different.  Neither of these two failures resulted in a new denomination nor were accompanied by numerous other separate ministries headed in the same direction.  Even if Moscow were to implode, the message will continue.  So, non-cultural theologians need to realize that cultural theologians are not going away.  The best way to deal with them is to recognize that they are legitimate and pursue a right relationship with them.
Cultural theologians are not in a panic mode.  No, they do not believe the sky is falling tomorrow.  We are not out to reclaim through politics the structure of America.  Donald Trump is not the answer.  God is sovereign. That is our hope.  However, we do not swallow the dialectic of the cross verses glory.  We believe in both, that because of the cross, Christ will be glorified not only in heaven but also upon earth as his people seek to bring every thought captive to his authority. Meekness in the heart granted by the Spirit of God is the way to the realization of this glorious kingdom, not for the glory of mere mortals like us, but for glory of our majestic God!  The Kingdom is not from this world, but it is indeed in this world.
Modern America is now Gomorrah in the hands of Cultural Marxists.  We tend to forget and ignore the fact that Marxism itself has a history, and its history always results in the shedding of the blood of millions of people.  We must be pro-life, not pro-death, even beyond the womb.  For non-cultural theologians, their hope may be in believing that persecution is the best way to heaven.  For cultural theologians, persecution may be their calling, too, but in time to come, the Kingdom of God will come to earth in its fullness, and the glory of the Lord will cover the earth as the waters cover the sea, all before the second coming of Christ. Whether they see it in fruition or not, it gives them a purpose on earth, both in their families and in their callings. It is wonderful to think that you had a part, be it ever so small, in the long-term victory. We are in it for the long-haul.  That is why Wilson’s children and others are fighting as warriors.
Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.
Related Posts:

The boundaries of the Christian Faith have been exchanged for other boundaries contrary to the Christian Faith.  What we are watching today is the replacement of the Second Commandment by a secularized First Amendment.  That was not the original intention of those who approved the First Amendment. The First Amendment was there to encourage the freedom of men to be faithful to the Holy Scriptures, not debasing a Holy God. 

When I heard of the statute of the Satanic idol being destroyed at the Iowa State Capitol Building, I thought of Charlie Daniels’ famous hit “The Devil Went Down to Georgia.”  In this song the Devil challenged the young man Johnny to a fiddle-playing contest. The prize for Johnny was a golden fiddle if he won, and the prize for the Devil was the soul of Johnny if he won.  Johnny won. I think a new song might be appropriately written by Charlie now, and as a man who lives in the South, I would call it “The Devil Went Up to Iowa.”
This statute has been demolished by a man from Mississippi. The head has been cut off, and only part of the statute remains on site.
Although I must confess that there was a joyful response in me as I visioned the ram’s head on the floor, yet, as a Reformed Christian I cannot support vandalism.  Men, even men like Michael Cassidy, who is a Christian and a former Navy fighter pilot, do not have the right to destroy public property.  You know—such an attitude toward the legitimacy of vandalism could lead to vigilante riots and the destruction of millions of dollars of property in cities like Minneapolis where the police are told to stand down while the city burns to the ground. Or it could lead to robbing jewelry stores in San Francisco in broad daylight and the only criminal is the owner of the store.  I am glad I live in a country where vandalism and vigilantism are not tolerated.
The real issue on trial here was not the statue of a pagan idol by the name of Baphomet in a public place set up by the organization called the Satan Temple of Iowa with the approval of the Iowa State Legislature.  The real issue here is the concept of free speech.  Does it violate free speech by restricting objectional material from public display?  One Iowan representative, who is a follower of Christ, and also an ordained minister, spoke approvingly of this public display as protecting the right of civil liberties guaranteed in the United States Constitution.  It is a matter of the First Amendment, he said.
Reactions in the Reformed world vary, as you might expect. The most common response is simply to grimace and ignore it.  “I do not like it, but idolatry in worship at my local church is a much bigger concern than an ugly statute of Satan in a State Capitol.”
So, what about the free-speech argument?  If we curtail free speech, are we curtailing rights guaranteed by the Constitution?  If we are, then this might lead to worse things.  It could even lead to being fired from work if you speak the wrong pronoun preferred by a transgender.  It could lead to a world-renown medical scientist being punished for publicly questioning the validity of the covid vaccine.  Or, likewise, it could lead to a presidential candidate being cancelled from social media for posting what high-tech corporate leaders call disinformation. Paraphrasing A. J. Liebling, the freedom of the press is only free to those who own one.  Another result of restricting the freedom of speech might be stamping out the call by young college students at Harvard University for the genocide of the Jews from the River to the Sea. I hope you see the potential danger of restricting free speech.
Of course, I am being a little facetious in this article.  Foolishness needs to be exposed at times. “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit (Prov. 26:5).”  When the statute of Robert E. Lee comes down and the statue of Satan goes up, it all seems a little controverted to me.
However, I think the confusion can be cleared up if we consider one thing. The issue in Iowa is not free speech but rather a matter of who sets the limits of free speech.  All free speech is limited.  Free speech is not absolute. You will get in trouble if you shout “fire” in a crowded theatre.
When America was a Chistian nation, it was assumed that the public display of Satanic symbols was outside the boundaries of free speech.  The First Amendment was created to protect the Christian Faith by the disapprobation of a national church in exchange for the approval of existing Christian denominations within the various States.
The First Amendment protected the Christian Faith by guaranteeing the freedom of Christian men to live with a conscience bound only by the Word of God. Yea for the Baptists!  Early America chose the Ten Commandments as its foundation for civil laws and for liberty. Apart from the Christian Faith, the United States Constitution becomes a purely secular document, and as such it is now being used to crush the basic tenets of Christian morality in the public square. Old-school Americans cannot seem to get beyond the sacredness of the First Amendment, even when it is being used as a weapon against them.
As America has drifted from a Christian Nation to a Polytheistic Empire (see A Polytheistic Empire – A New Experiment About to Fail?) the limits on free speech have changed.  New limits have been created and the old ones have been cast away.  That is what makes the conversation about the First Amendment so confusing and contradictory.  We highly value it, but for Christians it is no longer working for us.
The boundaries of the Christian Faith have been exchanged for other boundaries contrary to the Christian Faith.  What we are watching today is the replacement of the Second Commandment by a secularized First Amendment.  That was not the original intention of those who approved the First Amendment. The First Amendment was there to encourage the freedom of men to be faithful to the Holy Scriptures, not debasing a Holy God.
Presbyterians are bound by such documents as the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, but what I have found is that we, too, tend to be confused.  For example, the Larger Catechism Question #108 asks, “What are the duties in the second commandment?” The answer given, even for those in the special calling of civic leadership, is as follows. The duties are “disapproving, detesting, and opposing all false worship, and according to each one’s place and calling, removing it and all monuments of idolatry.” Of course, this does not legitimize vandalism, but it does command men to act where they legally have a right to do so in accordance with the commandments of God, even in the sphere of civil government.  It includes preaching about it too, something the modern church needs to do.
Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.
Related Posts:

Christianity compromised God’s biblical antithesis in the name of national unity.  If we were a Christian nation, we might have a hope for survival, even with variations in language and race.  However, like those who sought a humanistic unity at the Tower of Babel, we are doing the same thing as they did, and we are seeing the judgment of God in our own day.  With the passage of laws legalizing abortion and homosexual marriage, the American people have declared war against the God of the Bible.  Judgment follows the rejection of blessing. We no longer live in a post-Christian age but rather in an Anti-Christian age.

There is a great divide in the United States over the Israel-Hamas war in the Middle East.  Most Americans are surprised at the size of the pro-Palestinian sentiment as seen in large public demonstrations, and now resulting in actual physical violence. The Middle East has been literally imported to the United States, and madness is raising its ugly head.  The reason for this division in the United States is that we no longer have a Christian consensus.  We have shifted from a Christian Nation rooted in the truth of the Bible to a Polytheistic Empire rooted in Marxist ideology.
The United States was once a Christian Nation.  Regardless of your view on Christian Nationalism, it cannot be denied that even though we bear little resemblance to a Christian Nation today, we have been living off that capital for many years.  The Bible provided a reference point for both personal and civil law.  Christianity was the seedbed for national unity.
Christianity has dominated the landscape of this country since its beginnings.  Contrary to the United States Constitution, nine of the original thirteen colonies required a religious test for officeholders which reflected a recognition of the Christian Faith.  The States created the Union.  The Union did not create the States. With the loss of State sovereignty in the Civil War, with the rise of the power of the federal government, and with a federal Constitution not demanding a religious test, the shift to a Polytheistic Empire began. Today, we now have Muslims occupying legislative positions in our national government. This would have been unthinkable to most Americans just a half-century ago. I know because I was there over a half-century ago.
A Polytheistic Empire is a country where a multiplicity of nations adhering to a variety of religions seek to live in peace, all under the same roof—in the name of Democracy.  It is believed that Muslims, Jews, and Christians can live together in peace within the same borders.  We have been told that this is possible because Democracy will keep us united. In Democracy the ballot box is the common sacrament among the various religions.  It is the glue that holds us together. The problem is that all this verbiage is a big lie!  Democracy might be possible in a Christian Nation, but in a Marxist regime it becomes a weapon to impose Marxist equality on everyone.
The Bible is clear that nations are defined by a common religion (Ps. 33:12), a common border (Acts 17:26), a common language (Acts 2:6), and a common patriarch (or ancestry) (Rms. 9:3). The Japanese understand this.  The Chinese understand this.  The Russians, the Germans, the French, and the English once understood this.  In recent years western Europe thought they could mix Christianity and Islam within their own borders, but they are beginning to reverse that movement.  It has proved to be catastrophic.
The Biden Administration is an agent of this new political thought.  Open borders are now somehow supposed to be a means of ushering in this new utopia.  As White Christians are marginalized, color becomes the mark of God’s election. Victimhood is now the evidence of holiness, and laws must be reenacted to punish the oppressors to reflect this new Marxist social order.
The problem is that no nation has ever existed since Adam and Eve as a Polytheistic Empire with a multiplicity of nations existing peaceably within the same borders. Empires have existed by exercising raw power over various other nations—each living within their own national boundaries, even with their own religions. However, a Polytheistic Empire with a multiplicity of nations living within the same geographical boundaries is not possible.  It is as insane as creating a zoo where all the animals are put together in the same cage.  As a result, the melting pot we were promised in the typical yellow schoolhouse has become a boiling pot.
Do not forget that America is a new experiment in the history of nations.  We have only been around for a few hundred years—a very short time as compared to the thousands of years since Adam and Eve.  For at least a hundred years or so, we have ignored the biblical definition of a nation and sought by our own hubris to create a utopia based on the inherent goodness of man and the compatibility of all religions. We are like the young teenager who thinks he is wiser than those who came before him—you know the pitch—that the hope of the future is in the hands of our young people. But with time, like most of us, they find out they were just fools.
Christianity compromised God’s biblical antithesis in the name of national unity.  If we were a Christian nation, we might have a hope for survival, even with variations in language and race.  However, like those who sought a humanistic unity at the Tower of Babel, we are doing the same thing as they did, and we are seeing the judgment of God in our own day.  With the passage of laws legalizing abortion and homosexual marriage, the American people have declared war against the God of the Bible.  Judgment follows the rejection of blessing. We no longer live in a post-Christian age but rather in an Anti-Christian age.
Most of you who read this article will not be affected by this shift to a Polytheistic Empire.  However, you are watching it happen.  Decay happens gradually over time. You probably are alarmed, but not too much.  You have accumulated wealth and life is good.  It is your children and grandchildren who will have to pay the price for the error of our way. They will have to live with the fruit of our mistakes.
As a postmillennialist I believe before Christ returns that all the nations shall be converted through the preaching of the gospel.  For now, it is obvious that we have made a grave mistake in this country.  We failed to understand the basic definition of a nation. However, future generations will learn from our failures, and the day will come when God’s people shall see the glory of the Lord cover the earth as the water covers the sea.
Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.
Related Posts:

I believe that Christians need to be busy in restoring the dominance of the Christian faith in the public square beginning with the preaching of the gospel that captures not only the hearts of the people but the institutions that permeate our nation…. My point is that most arguments against blasphemy laws in America are bogus. There is no need to get all distraught about their existence.  Blasphemy laws regulate every society.  It just depends on what a nation considers sacred and profane.

I have made it known publicly that I am not a fan of the term “Christian Nationalism” (see Christian Nationalism” Dump the Term While We Still Can).  I believe that the term “nationalism” evokes an association with Hitler’s Nazi Nationalism or Mussolini’s Fascist Nationalism. This expression has not been helpful in the debate over the relationship between the State and the Christian Faith.  I think the tumultuous discussion over the use of this term in the past year has proven me correct.  I prefer the term Christendom or Christian Nation.  I do believe that the United States was once a Christian Nation, but now it is not.
I believe that Christians need to be busy in restoring the dominance of the Christian faith in the public square beginning with the preaching of the gospel that captures not only the hearts of the people but the institutions that permeate our nation. We need to make America Christian again.  I believe in the restoration of the law of God as revealed in the Ten Commandments as the standard for justice and equity in our country, and I believe that this includes the first table of the Ten Commandments.
I remember the days when businesses were closed on Sunday, otherwise termed the Christian Sabbath.  This was mandated by Blue Laws.  They were called blue laws because the original laws in New Haven, Connecticut, were written on blue paper. I remember when there were no Muslim mosques within our national boundaries.
Whether one uses the term Christian Nationalism or Christian Nation, one of the issues that inevitably arises in any discussion of this issue is the legitimacy of blasphemy laws.  For some reason, this term creates every type of negative reaction from the fear of creating a pope in America to the phobia of creating some type of tyrannical Prince ruling the Federal Government. People get all bent out of shape. It is considered a threat to freedom of speech. We are told that it goes against the Constitution and therefore is un-American.
However, blasphemy laws are inevitable.  Whether a law is written on paper or is simply a social norm makes little difference. And as laws, they are enforceable. Blasphemy is exacting a penalty for verbal or written speech that disparages something considered sacred in a particular group or society.  It all depends on what a group or society considers as being sacred. Ultimately, it depends on the dominant religion of that group or society.
Those of us raised in a previous Christian generation remember blasphemy laws quite well.  First, in the home there were usually unwritten blasphemy laws.   If a vulgar word came out of my mouth in my home, then my mother would threaten to wash my mouth out with soap.  I have watched a mother do this, literally!  Freedom of speech was not an absolute right in my home.
Blasphemy laws were enforced in our local community.  If a group of men and women were together in a social context, and a man used a curse word with God’s name, then the other men present (who were not even professing Christians) would either verbally or non-verbally condemn the bad language because we were in the presence of women. The perpetrator of vulgarity was sent a message that he needed to refrain from speaking such language.  He got the point quickly and the matter ended there. Blasphemy was not permitted.
In 1879 a Maryland law (Article 72, Sect. 189) stated that “If any person, by writing or speaking, shall blaspheme or curse God, or shall write or utter any profane words of and concerning our Savior, Jesus Christ, or of and concerning the Trinity, or any of the persons thereof, he shall, on conviction, be fined not more than one hundred dollars, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both fined and imprisoned as aforesaid, at the discretion of the court.” In 1836 Abner Kneeland was jailed for breaking the state’s blasphemy laws in the State of Massachusetts.
Today, blasphemy laws still exist but they have changed because the dominant religion of America has changed.  There are some words that cannot be used without paying a penalty for your speech.  Using an incorrect pronoun for a transgender person is now considered blasphemy. In Canada in 2021, Robert Hoogland surrendered himself to the court after a warrant was issued for his arrest by the attorney general of British Columbia. His crime was calling his daughter, a biological female, by female pronouns, and refusing to affirm her medical transition to become a trans male.
In 2020, if medical physicians made disparaging remarks about the covid vaccine, then they could be deplatformed from social media or fired from their jobs.  They were considered guilty of disinformation.  To disagree publicly with a governmental agency simply was not allowed. Statism was the new national religion, and any deviation from the pronouncement of the sacred state was blasphemy.
The old arguments for freedom of speech based on the U.S. Constitution made sense when America was a Christian nation.  All free speech has limits and the Christian Faith provided those boundaries.  We as a people agreed on what was sacred and what was not.  Since we are no longer a Christian nation, these old freedom of speech arguments based on 1950 civic courses (Eisenhower era) are no longer useful.  When the sacred becomes profane and the profane becomes sacred the blasphemy laws change. They never disappear.
My point is that most arguments against blasphemy laws in America are bogus. There is no need to get all distraught about their existence.  Blasphemy laws regulate every society.  It just depends on what a nation considers sacred and profane.
Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.
Related Posts:

The gospel does not repudiate the existence of the nations. It Christianizes them as they maintain their unique cultural distinctives that do not conflict with the Christian faith.  In the New Jerusalem that comes down to earth, the Bible says, “The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it (Rev. 21:24).” Nations will not cease to exist in the new heavens and the new earth.  Jesus told us to disciple the nations, not to assimilate them.

When I was in my last year as a student at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia in 1972, I had to preach my senior sermon under the tutelage of Dr. Jay Adams.  Videotaping was the new thing back then, and after the sermon was preached Dr. Adams would sit down in a small room with the student, and while playing the tape he would critique the sermon. I’m sure he heard better sermons than mine.
Dr. Adams was always honest and to the point. There was one thing he said to me that I will never forget.  “Larry, you need to either change your accent or go back to Appalachia.”  He was right and I went back to Appalachia.  I have been ministering here now for over fifty years.  Although the Appalachian Mountains extend from Maine to Alabama, the heart of Appalachia is southern West Virginia, Southwest Virginia, and extreme Eastern Kentucky—what might be considered coal country.
The heart of Appalachia is my heritage.  Traditionally, it has been a closed community because of its rugged mountains and its people who have a common ancestry.  Not many people move to the heart of Appalachia.  It developed a unique culture of its own and formed a distinct version of the English language. We shared a common religion, common habits, and common rituals.  For example, the rite of passage for a boy to become a man required hunting with a rifle (or preferably with a bow and arrow) and killing a deer, a male buck.  The number of points on the antlers added to your masculinity.
A common tale among my folks there in Appalachia was that the best place to find a wife was at a family reunion. Although, I did not meet my wife at a family reunion, I did meet her at a church picnic.  After we were married, she became interested in genealogy, and we soon found out that we were cousins. We were kin.  As a community-oriented people we tended to marry others within the Appalachian boundaries because we didn’t travel much beyond the mountains.
Before I was married, and after graduating from a local college, I moved away from Appalachia to attend Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia.  I soon felt a bit out of place in the big city.  Educationally, I was behind most students.  Culturally, I did not quite fit in. I found some American students to be condescending. I felt much more at home with fellow Asian students because it seemed to me that I was from a different country as much as they were. My roommates and best friends during my seminary years were from Korea and the Philippines. Living outside of Appalachia made me aware of how much I had in common with my own people back home, how much I had in common with minority groups, and how different I was from most other Americans.
Now to my point.  Having read much of the literature of Kinism and being from Appalachia, I often wonder if I am a Kinist (soft or hard?).  Samuel Sey’s recent article on The Aquila Report (Why Some Evangelicals Are Embracing Racism) pushed me to ask that question again, as I have asked myself many times in the past.
Any friendship with Kinists in the modern Reformed world is almost the kiss of death.  Kinism and Anti-Kinists are major enemies of each other. Most communications are filled with troubling language and inevitably someone on either side is accused of denying the gospel.   I have dear friends on both sides of the issue.  I don’t always agree with the Kinists and when I do disagree, they are quick to call my hand.  Among Anti-Kinists, I don’t usually even bring up the topic.  I read the literature from both sides of the isle, and I try to pick the choice nuggets from each.  Because of my experience in Appalachia, I can identify with some tenets of Kinism, and yet I’m still working on how this may apply to other people in different places.
I don’t believe interracial marriage is sinful.  For those who choose to make that decision, I am fully supportive, even though I believe it brings additional challenges with it.   Some of the finest Christian people I know are in interracial marriages. What bothers me today is that the modern media is normalizing it through popular venues such as TV commercials.  Individual choice among consenting adults is one thing.  Propaganda is another.
I have no problem with legal immigration. However, I am opposed to the invasion of illegal immigrants. The melting pot in America is quickly becoming a boiling pot.  I don’t believe multi-culturalism will survive in the long-run. I believe that nations are biblically defined by a common border, a common language, and a common religion (see my book on Critical Race Theory and the Church – Chapter 3).  In addition, my experience in Appalachia tells me that a common heritage is also critical.  Cultural Marxism is pushing the United States into tribalism, and the humiliation of this once-great country may soon be ahead of us.  I am afraid we interpret the Bible through the lens of American pluralism (now polytheism) more than we do through biblical categories.
The creation of languages at the Towel of Babel was not a judgment upon the concept of a nation per se.  It was a judgment upon a false religion that refused to implement the cultural mandate to subdue the whole earth (Gen. 1:28). God’s mandate required people-groups to spread across the entire globe, conquering all things on this earth for the glory of God, not building one large city with a tower reaching to heaven for the glory of man. Grace does not negate the creation of the nations; it redefines and redirects their goals in accordance with the words of Christ.
Having studied the arguments from both Kinists and Alienists (as they are called by Kinists), I could only wish that they could sit down at a table and discuss their differences in a civil way.  However, I don’t expect this to happen, no more than I expect a conversation between Christian Nationalists and their opposition.  I don’t expect these Christian leaders to talk to one another.  Just inflammatory words from both sides.  I’ve been around too long.  The future will reveal who was right and who was wrong. We’ll just have to wait and see, or maybe our grandchildren will see. In the meantime, the ammunition will continue to fly.
I believe Christians from various ethnicities can worship in the same local church.  We can all worship together.  However, I find that if different people-groups want to worship separately, it is not a sin.  In the PCA, more than 10% of our churches are Korean-American churches who speak the Korean language in their worship services. To help them in this endeavor, the PCA Book of Church Order has been translated from English into the Korean language.  Of course, they are welcome in traditional white Anglo-Saxon Christian churches, but they have chosen to worship in accordance with their own nationality, even as they live in America. They feel much more comfortable in doing so.  I have no problem with that.  They are my brothers and sisters in the Lord, and I respect their choice. On a denominational level where we all speak English we work well together. No one ever accuses them of being racists.
The gospel does not repudiate the existence of the nations. It Christianizes them as they maintain their unique cultural distinctives that do not conflict with the Christian faith.  In the New Jerusalem that comes down to earth, the Bible says, “The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it (Rev. 21:24).” Nations will not cease to exist in the new heavens and the new earth.  Jesus told us to disciple the nations, not to assimilate them.
Thus, am I a Kinist?  I married my cousin.  We have common ancestors.  We were both raised in the Appalachian culture, and we were both Presbyterians. We have been very happy and blessed. It’s natural to love your own people as we respect other people-groups as well. It has nothing to do with racism. My way is not the only way, but it has been a great blessing in my life.  In that sense, maybe you could even call me a hyper-Kinist.
Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.
Related Posts:

Two competing religions are struggling in a battle against each other for control of our nation’s numerous institutions such as the civil government, the military, education, and even the church. Whatever labels you use for the two sides of the conflict, either wokeism versus traditionalism, or Cultural Marxism versus Christianity, the clash between the two factions is heated and intense.  We call them culture wars, but we need to be reminded that culture is downstream from religion.

America is no longer a republic.  The President of the United States, whether it be a Biden or a Trump, has now become something akin to a king.  Executive orders and regulatory agencies have replaced congressional action.  Also, it is now being recommended that Supreme Court decisions should either be ignored or circumvented.  As Andrew Jackson allegedly said, “John Marshall made the law, now let him enforce it!”
Government agencies are no longer considered to be neutral, but they have been weaponized to protect the king in power.  Some mothers of children in public schools are now classified as domestic terrorists, and some political opponents are already in prison. If Donald Trump goes to jail before the next election, then expect the “Storming of the Bastille 2.0.”
Two competing religions are struggling in a battle against each other for control of our nation’s numerous institutions such as the civil government, the military, education, and even the church. Whatever labels you use for the two sides of the conflict, either wokeism versus traditionalism, or Cultural Marxism versus Christianity, the clash between the two factions is heated and intense.  We call them culture wars, but we need to be reminded that culture is downstream from religion.  In essence what we are witnessing today is a religious war.  Both sides desperately want to win. Any semblance of neutrality is gone. There is no white flag being waved.
Christendom has controlled the west for hundreds of years, but there is a revolution seeking to overthrow it.  Hatred between zealots on both sides of the division looms under their skin, and many men that I personally know are about to explode with violence.  Most Americans will not want to be involved.  Life is just too good.  Some will choose slavery over liberty.  A small minority will choose to fight.  Small minorities often are responsible for revolutions, and the majority will be dragged into the fight whether they like it or not.
The next presidential election may be a threat to our sanity in this country, regardless of who is elected.  In just a little more than a year, as a nation, we may face the greatest danger to our very existence since the Civil War.  We are in the middle of a cold war, and I am afraid that it may quickly turn into a hot war, where blood could literally flow in the streets.  We could see our civilization as we know it collapse.  With whom the military will side, I am not sure—usually it does side with those in power at the time. But they will have to make a choice.
I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet.  I am not sensational by nature.  I avoid conspiracy theories like a plague.  One does not have to be a prophet to see into the future.  He just needs to be a man immersed in good biblical theology who can see trajectories. Printing money produces inflation.  Debauchery in morals produces depression.  Religious conflict produces hatred.  A divided nation cannot long endure.
I am a post-millennialist and believe that the long-term future on this earth before the second coming of Christ will witness a spread of the gospel that will capture the nations (and not just a few elect from the nations).  However, in the near-term, I fear that our country may face a bloody trauma not seen since the Civil War.  Ideas have consequences.  Cold wars rooted in malicious hatred often become militant conflicts.
What are we to do?  How are we to prepare? I am no prophet.  Only God knows the future, but he usually works within the realm of cause and effect.  Just remember, if I am wrong, I never claimed infallibility.
First, don’t go and hide under a pillow.  Don’t retreat into Netflix movies to escape reality.  Read a lot but read the right stuff.
Secondly, find a biblical church where you can be part of a network of believers.  No one will come to your side like another Christian with whom you have built a long-lasting and trusting friendship.  Pray a lot.  God does answer the prayers of his people.  This may be our most powerful weapon.
Thirdly, prepare to protect your family.  Whether it be learning a new skill (such as plumbing), stocking up on food, or learning how to shoot a gun, formulate a plan.
Lastly, encourage your state and local political leaders to study the issue of states’ rights as delineated in the Constitution.  One obvious evidence of the present conflict is the division of our country into Red and Blue States.  Multitudes of people are moving to Red States looking for freedom.  Churches in my home state of Tennessee are growing like wild-fire because of the transfer of other Christians from places like California and New York.
As I was discussing this issue with a good friend recently, we both agreed that one way to avoid bloodshed is a return unto the states the powers that constitutionally belong to the states.  Negotiation between State Governors and a king in Washington, D.C. may be the last option to prevent bloodshed.  How that will look exactly is not for me to speculate, but it may be our only hope.  We need strong State Governors.  Next to prayer, decentralization and negotiation may be the only way we can avoid a Second Civil War.
Remember, God is sovereign and he loves his people.
Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.
Related Posts:

As America has moved from a Christian nation to a post-Christian nation, the meaning of words have changed.  Gay no longer means gay.  Equity no longer means equity.  Rather than equity being defined by God’s law ensuring biblical justice, it now is a wealth redistribution scheme mediated through the force of law or through guilt-manipulation.

Recently, talk-show host Bill Maher asked Senator Bernie Sanders what the difference between equality and equity is.  Sanders responded that he did not know. It was a humorous exchange between the celebrity and the senator who is a socialist leader in modern politics.  It was also very revealing.
The word equity is being used as a weapon in the modern woke and cancel-culture movement, but no one seems to be able to define what the word means. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) officers are everywhere to ensure equity, so someone needs to define it.  Even in the church there is an absence of knowledge about the meaning of the word.  I think this is because the meaning has changed over the last 20 years, and the church has not kept abreast of a world that is being transformed right before her very eyes.
The meanings of words do change.  For example, the word gay used to mean happy and delighted. The Flintstones were gay – both Fred and Wilma.  Every episode was introduced by their theme song that invited us to participate in a gay experience. “We’ll have a yabba-daba-do day.  We’ll have a gay old time.”   However, today the word gay refers to sexual perversion.  Similarly, my mother used to tell me to stand up straight; “don’t slouch,” she said.  Today, that might be considered an inappropriate directive.
The meaning of the word equity has changed. There is the old meaning and a new meaning. The dictionary tells us that it means “even, fair, and impartial,” but that is not enough to capture the use of a word in any society. We always need a reference point or a context.
Historically and traditionally in a Christian society, the meaning of the word equity was rooted in the Bible. It appears at least ten times in most modern English translations.  An important text is Psalm 99:4 where the Psalmist says, “The strength of the King loves justice.  You have established equity. You have executed justice and righteousness in Jacob (NASB).” Equity was equated with treating people fairly, justly, and righteously in accordance with the Law of God.
For example, regarding crime and punishment in the Old Testament, equity was mandated.  If a man steals another man’s property, he is not to be put to death or sentenced to ten years in prison.  He is to pay back double.  This is equity (fair) according to God’s law.  If a man steals business property, then he is to pay back more than double, not just to restore the that which was stolen, but to compensate for lost income. This is equity (fair) according to God’s Law.
My wife and I watch old British movies on Britbox, and invariably the story involves someone who is put in prison for 10 years for the theft of something like a few items of clothing.  This is not biblical.  It is not fair. Old Britain might have been considered a Christian nation, but they drifted too far from the biblical concept of equity.  In some societies the punishment for theft is to have your hand cut off.  Horrible!  Unjust! The same could be said for horse thievery in early western America.
If a man murders another man the punishment is not probation or life imprisonment, but death.  “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed (Gen. 9:6).”  Murder was a capital offense, when verified by two or three witnesses. We could go on with many other examples, but I hope you understand something of the old concept of equity.  It was rooted in the Bible, especially in God’s law.
Also, it should be noted that justice or equity must not consider race, gender, or economic status in judgment.  Lev. 19:15 says, “Do not pervert justice, do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but in righteousness you shall judge your neighbor.”  The symbol of Lady Justice who is blindfolded is appropriate and biblical.
Since we have become a post-Christian society, the meaning of the word equity has changed.  It has been hijacked. Maybe this is the reason Senator Sanders could not define the term.
The modern meaning of equity is probably derived from the world of finance. For example, if you purchase a $500,000 home and pay $100,000 as a down-payment, then you have $100,000 of owner’s equity in the home.  You own one-fifth and the bank owns four-fifths.  In a sense, if it has five bathrooms, you own one of them and the bank owns the other four.  Thus, the word equity has been popularized to refer to wealth.
In modern parlance, equity has come to mean the transfer of wealth due to injustice in the past which has resulted in disparity between different groups of people. This transfer is accomplished by either force (government statute or corporate directives), or simply by guilt-manipulation.
It should be noted that wealth is more than just money. Wealth can include positions of power or privilege. Certain other symbols of wealth such as talents and godly parents cannot be transferred, but this does not stop the woke movement from transferring all they can. The goal of modern equity is to right every social wrong by the transfer of wealth, without any reference to biblical law or ethics.
Modern equity is a redistribution of wealth scheme which must first be enforced by civil government.  For example, in the City of San Francisco, shoplifting of merchandize under the value of $950 has been decriminalized, and any retailer that seeks to apprehend such thieves can be sued. You can walk in a store, steal property, and walk out and go home.  No one is allowed to stop you.  You don’t have to go before a judge.  You don’t have to return the merchandise.  Theft is now considered to be an act that creates equity, not disparages it.  It is a state enforced equity in direct opposition to the definition of biblical equity.
The Supreme Court recently declared Affirmation Action as unconstitutional.  Again, this was a law that sought to promote the redistribution of wealth based on race or minority status rather than on merit.  Remember that wealth is more than money.  It includes position and power.
Also, the forgiveness of student-loan debt was another equity scheme to transfer wealth by law from one sector of society (many of those who chose not to go to college) to another sector (students in debt).  Reparations is one more scheme to transfer wealth from one class of society to another – again by force of law.  From a biblical perspective, reparations is just another form of theft – sanctioned by government force.
In addition to the implementation of modern equity by the force of law, the other major scheme to transfer wealth is simply guilt-manipulation.  Because some white men owned slaves in the South, all white men today are perpetrators of injustice or inequity.  If you can make another person feel guilty, they will become putty in your hands.  This seems to be the goal of the modern social justice movement.  Guilt is associated with the color of your skin or into what family you were born.  White men are guilty, period!
I must admit, that as a white man I am privileged, but this privilege comes by the grace of God, and not because there is any inherent goodness in me more than what exists in any others.  We are all wretched sinners because of our connection to Adam.
It is also interesting to note that within the structure of the white race there are inequities. I was raised in Appalachia where the sun hardly shined (because of the mountains), and where there were few dentists.  We wanted to improve our way of life, but we never wanted to do it with handouts from the civil government or by the force of law.  The Peace Corps was never welcome in our town.  We wanted to climb out of our poor condition, but only through merit and hard work.
As America has moved from a Christian nation to a post-Christian nation, the meaning of words have changed.  Gay no longer means gay.  Equity no longer means equity.  Rather than equity being defined by God’s law ensuring biblical justice, it now is a wealth redistribution scheme mediated through the force of law or through guilt-manipulation.
The gospel is the only answer to this change in America.  Only the gospel can right what is wrong.  Only the gospel can put fathers back into the home.  Only the gospel can give men the drive to use their gifts to the fullest for the glory of God.  Only the gospel can give privileged men humility and give marginalized men a hope of advancement in a society such as ours.
It appears that the church is choosing to avoid the cultural battles of our day because we have left the public square, and because we have retreated from leading our people in understanding the issues in the modern culture wars.  Understanding the hijacking of the word equity is necessary in order to participate in that war.
Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.
Related Posts: