The Return of the Kingdom
The book raises many questions for further reflection, such as regarding the extensive implications of sphere sovereignty. Whilst it is Biblically undeniable that God institutes and informs the distinct spheres of family, church, and state—each with Biblically defined parameters of governance—what about other “spheres”? Where do their boundaries lie, and who says so?…Who gets to decide these boundaries if they cannot be identified Biblically?
As Western societal norms erode at unprecedented levels and the Western political system becomes ever more questionable, a growing number of evangelicals are beginning to wonder whether Christians might have a few things to say about how to run a country.
Evangelicalism has long separated the ecclesial from the socio-political. The idea has been that if we can just get people saved and into churches, the world will more or less sort itself out. And if it doesn’t, it’s the state’s fault, not ours. We have imagined the worst possible state of affairs to be a “politicized” Church, preferring instead a policy of political quietism—or we might say, political “appeasement”—with the political Zeitgeist.
Perhaps this appeared sensible in light of the political partisanship of previous generations, where the Gospel’s edges may have been all too easily tailored to suit particular political agendas. This was, of course, a contextual reactionary approach, but has been held up as the definitively “Christian” way to engage (that is, disengage) with politics—an unusual stance even in light of Protestant history, let alone wider Church history.
There was also the issue of that revelatory year of 2020, when “Gospel-centered” evangelical churches appeared to become more politically amenable to the Left in subtle ways. Such pulpits had previously refused to speak strongly on issues like homosexuality, abortion, and transgenderism for fear of entangling the Gospel in distractive socio-politics. These same pulpits started commending government directives to deny church meetings, chastising the unvaccinated as unloving, and apologizing for whiteness and maleness.
Suddenly, we were introduced to a ream of new “Gospel issues” on the Left whilst continuing to dial down issues on the Right. Something deeply hypocritical in the evangelical mission was exposed, which many are still trying to dissect. Evangelicals are fast needing to re-educate themselves on what’s gone wrong and what Christians might say (and do) about it.
Enter Joe Boot’s Ruler of Kings: Toward a Christian Vision of Government (2022). Boot offers not just an engaging diagnosis of the deep problems with Western politics but also maps out how the Church might begin to respond reflectively and proactively. The word “toward” in the subtitle is key. Boot is not offering a fully fleshed-out political strategy nor a manifesto for Christian nationalism per se. But what he does offer is a robust, reflective, and extremely valuable theological underpinning for how we might begin to reclaim the socio-political arm of Christian mission.
At 200 pages it is a relatively short book, yet it feels tightly packed, covering an impressive amount of ground, introducing and unpacking an enormous amount of Biblical, theological, and socio-political reflection. Whilst the brevity of the book in light of the ground covered certainly leaves some material in need of yet more unpacking (especially Biblically) Boot generally does a superb job here of bringing issues to the forefront which have gone unconsidered for a long time.
Whilst he engages a wide range of sources, he is offering here a recovery of the Kuyperian vision applied to our present era. To evangelicals less familiar with some of these Dutch Reformed sources, it may feel like Gandalf trawling the dusty shelves of the Minas Tirith library for things long forgotten. If evangelicals have claimed to appreciate the socio-cultural apologetics of Francis Schaeffer or Abraham Kuyper’s famous maxim that there is “not one square inch” over which Jesus is not Lord, most evangelicals have not acted like it.
This is what Boot’s book aims to do, to think through the socio-political implications of Christ’s lordship and to reflect upon what it might mean to take it seriously in our time.
The Rule of Christ and the Cult of the Expert
Boot begins by contrasting the authority of Christ with the “self-anointed elite class—the intelligentsia” of Western humanism, who become “a secular substitute for pastor and priest” (16). He roots this in the radical human autonomy of the Renaissance, which ultimately rejected God’s given order for creation, recreating the world in humanity’s image. We need not look far today to see such reconstructions in practice: “[W]e can create the world we live in by our thought and language, right down to our sexuality” (19).
The “cult of the expert” refers to the way in which specialized intellectuals are afforded immense ideological power over the populace, despite having—in Thomas Sowell’s words –no “overarching conception of the world” (21). Such experts today are on a quasi-divine mission to convert and sanctify us towards the “virtues” of their favored ideology.
Whilst Western Christians seem to place implicit trust in such figures, Boot reminds us of Biblical figures like Joseph and Daniel, whose courageous application of God’s revelatory Word confounded the governmental advisors and experts of their day, enabling profound kingdom influence upon state and society (31-32). It should be noted, however, that such heroes did not strategize their way to political influence but were raised up through providential happenstance, often against their own inclinations. Even so, today, it is not political hubris that haunts evangelicalism, but fear of it.
Such fear comes at a cost. If we neglect our confidence in God’s Word, relying instead on “the ideas of godless people” for political direction, we “faithlessly abandon our society and culture to despotism and tyranny.” (33). A decade ago this might have sounded like a zealous overstatement. But the devastating impact of the cultural revolutions of recent years, coupled with cowardly ecclesial responses, reveals a more pressing concern to reclaim our socio-political confidence.
In ceasing to see God’s Law-Word as good and wise for all people, we have outsourced wisdom to posturing experts who oppose God’s kingdom, and thus we neglect “the whole counsel of God” as an important way we are to love our Lord as well as our neighbor.
Globalist Utopia vs. Biblical Nationhood
One of the consequences of our political abdication is the rise of globalist utopianism. This trend is rooted in the ideological legacies of the French Revolution and Marxism which continue to inform the infantilization and social control of the Western populace today, powered by elitist ideals. As Rousseau said: “Those who control a people’s opinions control its actions.” (36). Boot argues that Christians should reject all utopian visions as anti-real, coercive, and placeless (hence, “global”).
Theologically, utopias implicitly reject God’s providence, assuming a soteriological role to liberate humanity from disorder (36-39). Boot imagines globalist utopia as an idolatrous “godhead”, harboring mutated doctrinal attributes of divine “omnipotence”, “love”, “justice”, etc. This is insightful for understanding the progressive weaponization of personal offense in our time: “For there to be unity in the new godhead there must be total equality and equal ultimacy among all people…This means that there can be no discrimination in regard to anything.” (49). Although Boot does not cite it, this chimes in with Richard Weaver’s Ideas Have Consequences (1948) which lamented the West’s inevitable abolition of hierarchy, distinction, and judgment between different moral choices and ideas.1
The incessant drive towards mutated versions of love and justice leads to “an essentially structure-less collectivity of beings in harmony with themselves and the other (nature).” (53). This entirely impossible totalizing ideal requires an imagined omnipotence to even attempt: “In order to be all-powerful, the new god, of necessity, must eliminate chance, impotence (powerlessness) and uncertainty from human affairs and this requires total control and omni-competence.” (54). Totalitarian globalism thus becomes an inevitable byproduct of the Enlightenment, where God’s authority was supplanted in place of our own, echoing both Eden and Babel.
What, then, is the Christian alternative? Not Christian imperialism, Boot argues, but the preservation of Biblical nationhood. This involves theological reflection on the purpose of the nation-state throughout Scripture, including God’s desire to set distinct boundaries (e.g. Deut. 4:5-8, Acts 17:26-27), His proclamations to the nations (e.g. Isa. 42:1-6) and His opposition to man-made attempts at unification (cf. Babel). Indeed, Biblical nationhood has both a creational and eschatological telos, culminating in Revelation where the nations are unified not in defiance of God but in worship of Him.
Boot is nuanced enough to understand some globalist intentions stem from “a deep religious hunger and urge toward the unity and peace of the human race” but argues how this cannot possibly be achieved by idolatrous rejection of God’s commands (80). Contrasting the coercive “diversity” of the humanist utopia, God’s New Jerusalem “affirms a rich cultural diversity of languages, ethnicities and national identities, because the Word of God will have been applied and contextualized amongst every people of the earth.” (81). An ambitious vision indeed—but a Biblical one.
Religion, Government, and the Secularist Illusion
Boot then moves on to the implications of worldview. When Christians assume the neutrality of a secular and/or religiously pluralistic worldview in society they often aid implications that directly oppose Christianity. What we believe about the world is not merely a “private” religious matter. It necessarily affects “how we view marriage and family, human society, education, law and yes, politics and government!” (88).
-
Truth in a Culture of Noise
We have been commissioned by the Word of God himself, Jesus Christ, to go into all the world with his truth. It will not be our ingenuity or our volume that gives the word of God its strength. Its power is inherent. It is truth, and it will stand forever. It will be a light to our feet and a lamp unto our path (Psalm 119:105). If we abide in his word, we are truly his disciples, and we will know the truth, and the truth will set us free (John 8:31-32).
We are a people clamoring to be heard, but when the flood of voices drowns their own, many people will raise their pitch and resort to all kinds of hyperbole to gain an audience. Even journalists have degraded their profession by using misleading headlines to coax us into clicking their links. From politicians to personal trainers, it seems few are immune.
Contrary to Thoreau, many people are no longer living lives of quiet desperation. Instead, they broadcast their distress like a distorted siren. I suppose the world has always been this way; after all, there is nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Still, with the introduction of the internet and social media, it all seems amplified these days.
As the world continues shouting for attention, truth has fallen in the streets (Isaiah 59:14). Our culture has replaced reason with emotions. Instead of talking about issues, we voice our feelings, trumpet our offense, and label those who disagree with us as evil. Personal attacks rule the day. We judge people for their judging, unaware of our hypocrisy. In a world that believes truth is relative and autonomy is the highest value, anything and nothing can be stated as truth, and those who disagree will be labeled as bigots.
He who shouts the loudest is the winner. We shout on television, online, and with our pocketbooks, and increasingly we see people starting to shout with violent protests. Since we can no longer reason, anyone who believes in truth and threatens the dogma of relativism will be bullied. Might makes right is the only logical outcome in a culture that denies truth.
It should not surprise us that many people use the word “hate” like a bully uses his fists: to dominate and intimidate.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Religious Beliefs Shouldn’t be Subject to “Verification,” Justice Neil Gorsuch Says in Dissent
Last August, the First Liberty Institute, Christian Legal Society and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLC filed a petition to the Supreme Court on behalf of New Life in Christ Church after the Virginia Supreme Court refused to hear the complaint against the city for denying the tax exemption status.
A pair of ministers seeking a tax-exempt status shouldn’t be subject to a government “verification” process, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch argued Tuesday.
The Supreme Court denied a request for oral argument in the case of New Life in Christ Church v. City of Fredericksburg, which centered on whether Josh and Anacari Storms can claim a tax exemption for their residence.
The couple are college ministers who minister to students at the University of Mary Washington in Fredericksburg, Virginia, and host Bible studies and worship events.
City officials had concluded that they could not claim tax-exempt status for a parsonage, contending that the Storms family does not fit the exact classification of a minister according to the Presbyterian Church in America, which includes a requirement to be ordained and a prohibition on female ordination.
Gorsuch took exception to the nation’s high court denying the appeal in a written dissent, arguing that the Storms should have been eligible for the tax-exempt residence.
“The church tried to explain that the City misunderstood its traditions and practices. The church responded that, yes, women can and do serve as ministers,” wrote Gorsuch.
“It acknowledged that ‘in order to deliver sermons’ a minister in its tradition must be ordained but nothing in its rules or the Book of Church Order ‘prohibits a particular church from hiring ministers to serve as messengers and teachers of the faith’ without ordination.”Read More
-
The Power of Slander: The Reality And Effectiveness Of Slander Part 1
Written by Thomas D. Hawkes |
Monday, May 9, 2022
Slander is so effective because we often want to believe the worst about others. Why is this so? People want to feel good about themselves by judging themselves right or righteous. “For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness” (Rom. 10:1) Rather than looking to Christ to make us righteous, we pursue self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is the basis of all human-made religion, and indeed, much of human activity that drives us into conflict.The Definition And Use Of Slander
Slander is powerful, effective, and deadly. Slander, to be slander, must meet two simple criteria: it must be false, and it must damage the reputation of the person slandered. Miriam Webster defines it thus: “The utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another’s reputation.” One minor note: slander is spoken, and is generally distinguished from libel, which is the written form of slander.
Why is slander so often used? Simply because it is amazingly effective. In politics, slander often takes the form of a science, called negative campaigning, or more popularly, mudslinging. Rick Farmer, Ph.D., an assistant professor of political science at the University of Akron who has studied the impact of negative campaigning ads, says, “They’re very effective . . . people have a cynical view of politics and tend to believe the negative very quickly.” Research has shown that people remember longer and are more deeply swayed by negative statements.
Slander is as old as humanity, literally. Satan’s temptation of Adam and Eve included a slander against God. “But the serpent said to the woman, ‘You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil’” (Gen. 3:4–5).
Satan slanders God by subtly suggesting that God’s motive in forbidding them to eat the fruit was actually self-protection, not protection of them. Satan impugns God’s motive for giving his good command. Satan’s accusation was a lie. God’s motive was not self-protection, but rather love for his creation, humanity, to protect them from sin and death.
Satan’s lie also harmed their view of God. This first lie meets both the criteria for slander. And it worked. Adam and Eve stopped trusting God and trusted Satan instead, following his leadership to sin, death, and destruction. We see the result of the first slander all around us! Slander’s impact is unchanged today: sin, death, and destruction follow slander, naturally.
Slander is also as current as the cancel culture. At the very heart of the modern, social-media-enabled cancel culture is good old-fashioned slander. Why reason with an opponent when one can just obliterate him on a blog? Why bother to engage with another human being when one can entirely dehumanize them with lies on Twitter? Cancel culture has perfected and legitimized slander as the art form of the day. Invited by the attack of one person, soon a virtual mob assembles to finish off the hapless victim, much like a pack of wolves descending on its prey.
Why Slander Is So Effective
Why is slander so powerful? At least two things make slander so effective: the power God has given to the spoken word, and our sin nature which welcomes slander.
God has given great power to the spoken word. He spoke and all creation came into being. “By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible” (Heb. 11:3).
Jesus demonstrated the power of the word when he calmed the sea. “And he awoke and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, ‘Peace! Be still!’ And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm” (Mark 4:39). He demonstrated the power of the word when he raised Lazarus from death. “‘Lazarus, come out.’ The man who had died came out” (John 11:43–44). Jesus was the Word incarnate. “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14).
Created in God’s image, God has given astonishing power to our words. God has given us the power to speak and define reality by naming things. “And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name” (Gen. 2:19). God has given us the power to speak and with our words to bless or to curse. “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them” (Rom. 12:14). While we often discount the power of our words, God has given the spoken word great power.
Second, slander is so effective because we often want to believe the worst about others. Why is this so? People want to feel good about themselves by judging themselves right or righteous. “For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness” (Rom. 10:1) Rather than looking to Christ to make us righteous, we pursue self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is the basis of all human-made religion, and indeed, much of human activity that drives us into conflict.
Apart from faith in Christ, there are two ways we seek to judge ourselves righteous. We may pursue it positively, so to speak, by achieving, or appearing to achieve, through boasting. Or we may try to feel right about ourselves by tearing others down, through negative comparisons or outright slander.
Although we are not supposed to find our worth in this world by tearing others down, our fallen human nature, even the remains of it in believers, is eager to do so. “There have been men in the world that have sought to make themselves out of the ruins of other men. This did Judas, and some of the Pharisees” (John Bunyan, Seasonable Counsel or Advice to Sufferers, 23).
It is easy and efficient to build ourselves up by tearing others down. It is even easier to allow others to do it for us. Hence our proclivity to believe slander.
The slanderer does our work for us. All we must do in order to feel better about our rightness in the world is to simply accept the slanderer’s critical evaluation of their target. This has the added benefit of making us appear to be a caring and concerned listener, supporting the “victim” who has been “wronged” by the person being slandered. It is a win for the slanderer and a win for the person accepting the slander. And a loss only for the target of the slander. This is why we relish slander: it enhances our sense of self-righteousness.
Because of our desire to feel self-righteous and the power of the spoken word, slander works with deadly effectiveness. Consider the case of Naboth and Jezebel. In 1 Kings Chapter 21 King Ahab tries to buy the vineyard of Naboth. Naboth refuses to sell it because the land is his family’s inheritance.
King Ahab goes home sulking. His Queen, Jezebel, hearing his dilemma, proposes a simple solution. She wrote letters, in her husband’s name and with his seal, to the elders and leaders of the city where Naboth lived, Jezreel. “And she wrote in the letters, ‘Proclaim a fast, and set Naboth at the head of the people. And set two worthless men opposite him, and let them bring a charge against him, saying, ‘You have cursed God and the king.’ Then take him out and stone him to death’” (1 Kings 21:9–10). She tells a lie designed to destroy the reputation of Naboth, a slander.
The plan worked perfectly. For the simple effort of a little slander, Jezebel and Ahab destroy the reputation and life of Naboth and steal his inheritance. Jezebel and Ahab win without breaking a sweat. We see the power of slander at work!
Dr. Thomas D. Hawkes is a Minister in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church and serves a Director of Church Planting for the ARP Florida Presbytery, and as Lead Pastor of Christ ARP Mission in Fernandina Beach, Fla.
Related Posts:
