Almost a year ago, I heard an interview that Gary DeMar did with Brian Godawa. Brian was promoting his book Cruel Logic. As a result of the interview, I purchased the book.
I enjoyed most of the book except for a side character named “Danny”. Danny had nothing to do with the main plot and I skipped much of the interaction that he had with this babe that was the ringleader for the campus chapter of Black Lives Matter. This storyline pushed an otherwise PG story into R Rated territory. Brian had a point in putting the character into his book, but I can’t gripe too loudly about it without spoiling this part of the story. Let me just say that it left me very uncomfortable on a lot of levels.
Anyway, I decided to get another Brian Godawa book that was about the biblical character Noah. Frankly, I didn’t like it all that much. Brian took what I felt was the weasel way out and opted for a local instead of a global flood. On a key plot point, he cheated by doing this. I will get into this more shortly without mentioning this book. However, what I did like was in his appendix to the book. He discussed a different view on Old Testament cosmology. Each novel that he writes has extensive background material in the book’s appendix that is arguably better than the novels.
Brian and some of his fellow travelers are big on understanding the Bible within the context of the surrounding cultures. As they see it, much of what the Bible does is subversion of other culture’s mythologies. He makes a good argument that the Bible does this in many passages as it puts down the gods of other nations and exalts the God of Scripture.
Much of this cannot be seen in English translations because the translators didn’t understand the references, or the translators believed the manuscripts to be correct. Much of the supernatural view of Scriptures relies on the Septuagint—the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Godawa and others make the argument that the Jews tinkered with the Hebrew translations of the Old Testament in the second and third centuries after Christ to minimize passages that benefitted Christian efforts to proselytize Jews. They also lean heavily on extrabiblical writings between the Old and New Testaments.
In addition, some of their arguments get into the literal jots and tittles of the Hebrew text. Originally Hebrew was written entirely in consonants. Vowel markings were added later and, in some cases, may have been incorrect. Likewise, they occasionally take exception with how the Greek was handled. A check on some of the translations relies on the Dead Sea Scrolls as an independent voice on which translation is correct.
The most famous mistranslation in the Bible is the word, “Armageddon.” As written, it means “mountain of Megiddo”; however, Megiddo is a plain and there are zero mountains there! They and others say that the correct rendering is “mountain of assembly” which is in Jerusalem not Megiddo. Frankly, this makes more sense but is clearly less sensational.
There is a myriad of both small and great tweaks that they believe need to be made to the English translations. Once you start down this path, it is clear that Moses and the prophets, were bashing pagan gods and their practices on a regular basis. It is our ignorance of the historical context and surrounding pagan religious beliefs that prevents us from seeing references to them on the pages of the Bible. In reality the Bible is neither safe nor tame if you start digging into it.
Believe me, unicorns are easy to explain compared to spirits, Tartarus, Satyrs, Lilith, vampires, and a variety of other biblical references that have been papered over in English. Talk about making the Bible, come alive, Michael Heiser’s “Unseen Realm” came make it anything but routine.
One controversial aspect to the supernatural view of the Bible is its reliance on books such as First Enoch. I Enoch is quoted by New Testament writers like Peter and Jude and is even referenced by the Apostle Paul.
One of Heiser’s books has an extensive list of familiar (to the original audience) noncanonical works quoted in the Bible. You’d be surprised how much in the Bible is a direct response to the pagan cultures surrounding ancient Israel.
Some passages of the Bible are clearly about supernatural entities be they demons or angels. Psalm 82 is one example.
Recently, my pastor did a sermon on this Psalm and totally missed the point. He did a whole sermon on the passage assuming that it was talking about human judges. It is not. It is clearly speaking of supernatural beings. Otherwise, how do the last few verses make any sense?
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
My pastor skipped these verses in his sermon. If you assume this Psalm is about men, I can see why this part was passed over. Why would it be bad to tell a human judge that he will eventually die and fall like a prince? For a judge to be equated with a prince in the above context seems to be a bad thing, but equating a human judge to a prince seems like a promotion to me. The “Ye are gods” in verse 6 should be familiar since Jesus quoted it as proof of his divinity. If Jesus is using the verse to prove his divinity, how can my pastor be using this same verse to prove that it is applied to men? (John 10:34)
However, if I was to tell a supernatural being that he was to die like a man and fall like a prince, that would be about the worst outcome a supernatural being could be promised. Please note that God is not threatening those in Psalm 82 with this outcome, God is proclaiming their judgement.
This Psalm is messianic. God is taking the rule of nations away from angels (supernatural beings) that have failed to govern men justly and that rule is being given to Him. Jesus inherits the nations as a result of the Resurrection and Ascension.
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.
Psalm 82 has zero to do with human rulers.
Another passage that Heiser and others show is mistranslated is Deuteronomy 32:8.
When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.
This verse makes zero sense if you read it. How could God divide the nations according to the children of Israel when this was done centuries before Israel had been born? God divided the nations after the Flood. There were 70 nations.
A traditional understanding is that Genesis 10 enumerates some seventy original nations. This number is often symbolically significant in Scripture, indicating completeness. Later in biblical history, the concept of “the seventy” reappears in various contexts, such as the seventy elders of Israel (Numbers 11:16) and the sending out of the seventy (or seventy-two) disciples by Jesus (Luke 10:1). This recurrence underscores the unity and diversity of humanity under divine providence.
Israel has twelve sons, not seventy. Heiser and other say that this passage should read as “the sons of god” not “children of Israel”.
So, what Deuteronomy 32 is saying is that the nations were ruled by angels—probably of the fallen variety—but God was going to create his own nation and call a people for himself. Enter one guy named Abram then Isaac, then Jacob, add four hundred years, and here we are wandering through the desert.
Heiser’s motto is something to the effect that if its in the Bible and its weird, then its important.
There are some weaknesses in parts of what Heiser says.
He and his followers don’t seem committed to a young earth interpretation of the Bible and allow more years into the past than most Creationists believe.
Heiser and many of his supporters are not sure if the Flood of Noah was global. This is due in part to the next point.
Heiser believes the Nephilim are giants—half breed offspring of angels and human women. (See Genisis 6) This unholy crossbreeding was the main reason there was a Flood. The Bible is clear that the children of Nephilim were alive after the Flood. No explanation is given as to why the Nephilim would be the cause of a Flood but that their offspring would still be alive after it occurred. Both the Bible and extrabiblical texts are silent on this question. Did angels insist on fathering children with human women anyway?
The traditional understanding of Satan and the fallen angels is wrong. There were three angelic rebellions.
These three rebellions are: (1) Satan’s initial rebellion against God, (2) the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 leaving heaven to take human wives, and (3) the divine council abusing their territorial rule over the nations and turning it into a sort of rivalry against the true God. For Heiser, this threefold framework explains the majority of the Bible’s spiritual-warfare passages, and it clarifies the difference between Satan, false gods, and demons.
One strength of Heiser’s ideas is that of explaining why during the conquest of the Holy Land by Joshusa that some cities were razed and others just conquered. Those cities held or ruled by descendants of giants were totally destroyed, those with no association with giants were just taken militarily. This completely diffuses the claim that Joshusa was all about genocide. The only genocide was for half-breed offspring of angels and women not normal humans. Thus, the conquest was really a type of spiritual warfare.
Heiser also adds some depth and background to the mission and ministry of Jesus. Heiser uses the location of events in Jesus’ ministry to show that the backdrop of many events was a type of spiritual warfare. Jesus was challenging the pagan gods and claiming superiority in a number of familiar stories related to walking on water, casting out demons, the transfiguration, and many more events. The idea that His spiritual warfare was only 40 days in the wilderness is a far cry from reality.
The thing that does go too far in my opinion is adding Heiser’s ideas to the Pre-mil, dispensational nonsense that has permeated much of Christianity. Unleashing Heiser on a future understanding of the book of Revelation creates a whole new genre of science fiction and speculation that knows no bounds. Even Hal Lindsey and Tim Lahay would roll over in their graves if they heard some of the wild speculation that is being published today as a result of mashing up Heiser with the Scofield Reference Bible.
Heiser is about 85 to 90 percent correct but I’m skeptical on the last little bit. Perhaps there are some texts out there which have yet to be translated that might convince me of the remaining part. I believe in demons and that there were giants, I’m just not sure Heiser can fully explain them with an appeal to I Enoch. On the other hand, nothing he advocated is related to whether we get into heaven or not. He does liven up Scripture reading and that is something very few can say. Once you read his book, the Bible will be a more lively place to explore your relationship with God and your understanding of its historic and cultural context.
Brian Godawa and some others do a podcast almost every month called Iron and Myth.
It is an exploration of Heiser’s ideas, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and current archaeology. Currently, there are 38 episodes that are each just over an hour each. The last 15 minutes is a solo segment by Derek Gilbert. Gilbert is one of the folks that has crazy ideas about Revelation. He is usually OK when talking about history. He drives me crazy because he can’t see that Revelation (for the most part) was fulfilled in 70 AD. Godawa liens Reformed and Calvinistic. I tend to agree with him more than the others. Doug Van Dorn is a Reformed Baptist pastor. Judd Burton works in the field of archaeology.
Last note is that episode one of Iron and Myth is audio only. Derek Gilbert has an app called GilbertHouse that is available for Apple or Android phones. This app can download either audio or video of episodes of this podcast and others as well.
“A man’s got to know his limitations.” Clint Eastwood
I wish to preface my comments with the statement that I really like living in North Idaho. But some folks in the pulpit can get under my skin. What follows is a bit of a rant on this topic.
First, I am about the most ecumenical person that you will ever meet. I have very strong convictions on what I believe but I have enough charity to allow others that hold different opinions (or convictions) than mine and not let our differences be a barrier to fellowship. The caveat is that they must acknowledge the central tenants of the faith. The Apostle Paul put it thusly, “For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” 1 Cor 2:2.
Second, I really dislike it when other guys call everyone else in the Church that believes differently than them, heretics, apostates, unbelievers, and other derogatory things, and damn them all to hell; doubly so when they are demonstrably wrong. Triply, so when the differences are secondary theological issues.
There’s a guy up here that is all over Facebook tearing everyone else down and thinking he is promoting his tiny little church. The problem is that this guy is the pastor of said tiny church. Were he just a member then I would write it off to him being a nut but when he is constantly playing the clergy card then it deserves a response. This dude is proud. I mean as in PRIDE in all caps, proud. This is a trait that I have encountered often with folks that identify as Baptist. I know because I used to be much like him. Yuck. They are Right, just ask them. In fact, they are so right that any Scripture that might challenge their view cannot possibly be translated correctly. They totally own the entire market on Truth, just ask them.
The clergyman in question, claims that the King James Bible is THE Word of God. No, you need to read that again. It’s not the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic manuscripts that the Bible was originally written in that are the Word of God but THE 1611 English translation that is THE inspired Word of the Almighty. The Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts, even if we had the originals of the Prophets and Apostles, are not the Word of God. Only the work product of the translators of the 1611 Authorized Version of the King James Bible could produce the genuine text of God.
First this means that Jesus never knew what the Word of God actually says because the inspired Word of God would not exist for another sixteen centuries. Thus, the Septuagint version that Jesus quoted during his earthly ministry was not inspired. I was pointblank told by this guy that Jesus never quoted the Septuagint during his earthly ministry. The only alternative is that Jesus really did talk in Elizabethan English.
Second, the Word of God was not only unknowable in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek but in its subsequent Greek and Latin translations. Only after translation by fallible scholars over the course of more than 1,600 years could the actual Words of God be known. This idea is as ridiculous as the origin of the Orange Catholic Bible in Frank Herbert’s Dune series.
The idea that the so-called Authorized Version of the King James Bible (KJV) is THE WORD of God is stupid. So, why does he make such an indefensible claim? Because he can’t read Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek and he wants a way to claim superiority over those that do. You see, if you can read the ancient languages, you can prove that the King James has errors in it and that some of his theological positions are false. Taking false pride in his ignorance is just a cover for his shortcomings. Talk about a bully in a bully pulpit.
I recently challenged him on a few of his claims on Facebook and was finally told to view his sermon and all my questions would be answered (or rebutted). For entertainment purposes, I looked up his YouTube sermon. Can you believe that he didn’t even link it to his suggestion to watch it? The sermon was based on John 3:22.
“After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.”
If you read the verse above, you might expect a sermon about Jesus traveling with his disciples and wondering if Jesus was baptizing folks along the way. Or the interaction of Jesus and his disciples with those of John the Baptist in the verses that follow but no, we get to launch from this one verse into a rant about politics and the evils of fellow Christians. Here is his promotion for what you get from his sermon on this lonely and seemingly innocuous verse.
🤔Does your church teach that society and culture will get better and better through the Christian involvement in politics and government?
🤔Does your Church host John Birch Society events?
🤔Is your Church involved with the Black Robe Regiment?
🤔Does your Church quote a man by the name of Doug Wilson, or hold to any of his teachings?
👉If you answered yes to any of those questions then chances are good that your church has been infected with a false teaching
My first thought upon seeing this was an old quotation of Dr. Walter Martin, (a Baptist minister that could read Greek and Hebrew), “A text without a context, is a pretext, usually for error.”
The pastor went from John 3:22 to Matthew 24 which he then tried to cherry-pick. His attempt at logic was this, Jesus takes care of his disciples. You are Jesus’s disciples and thus he will care for you too, but Jesus warned you in Matthew 24: 4-14 about those bad people over there. The linkage between the two verses is imaginary because there is none but why let facts get in the way of a great opportunity to pontificate?
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows. Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
Jesus warned his hearers to beware of bad stuff that was about to happen to them in a few short years, but somehow, he left out the specifics. Believers lingered in agony for over 2,000 years trying to decipher these words of Christ until our intrepid minister was able to identify what Jesus really meant.
Oh, the bad stuff Jesus was warning about in Matthew 24 (quoted above) could be totally avoided if his hearers fled a few miles to the mountains when they saw the impending signs. Clearly the warning is a local not global catastrophe.
“Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:” Matt 24:16.
But why let context get in the way of bashing people that the good reverend doesn’t like including: Presbyterians, Free Masons (black robe regiment?), members of the John Birch Society, Doug Wilson, or any other “false teacher” as he defines it. (Please note only he has the ability to know the truth from false, it is not based on Scripture but his secret knowledge.)
At this point, I was only about halfway into his sermon and had listened to all that I could stomach.
Sorry, but this portion of Matthew 24 is such a misquoted passage that I couldn’t let it go without comment. I will limit my comments to one word in verse 14: namely, “world”.
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
There are three words in Greek that are translated into English as “world” in the KJV. One means the entire world (cosmos), the inhabited world or Roman Empire (Oikumene), and another that often means the land in or around Israel.
It seems that every person I know that is clueless about Greek thinks “world” in verse 14 is talking about the entire planet. They think since the Gospel has not gone to every nation on the planet that “the end” mentioned in verse 14 can only mean the end of history. However, if you bother to look up verse 14 in Greek, something the minister in question categorically refuses to do, it says this, once the gospel has gone to every nation in the Roman Empire (Oikumene) that the end would come. Thus, whatever “the end” was, it is a past event that happened during the lifetime of the original audience that heard Jesus’ words. This makes the biblical admonition in Matthew 24 an historic event that happened 2,000 years ago and not some unrealized future event.
If the minister can’t get the context of the verse correct, then how can we trust his application of the text?
He is abusing the passage to erect a strawman that he can then verbally beat like in piñata. Tearing other Christians down as a way to lift himself up is a constant part of his evangelism. Everyone in his community and his country is going to hell because they don’t agree with him. This guy is like a Babylon Bee parody of a Jack Chick Bible tract.
Oh, many of the people and groups that he attacked in his Sunday morning rant are going to be in heaven with or without his help. Somehow Baptists think they are the only folks that will make it into the Pearly Gates. Why is that anyway?
What’s that old saying about remaining silent and not opening your mouth lest you remove all doubt?
Part of the sermon was an Ad Hominem attack on a group of people that fought to make homeschooling legal in the United States. This minister believes in homeschooling and opposes sending children to government schools but was too clueless to know that he benefitted from the hard work of fellow believers that he was falsely attacking. This really angered me.
When a guy attacks you and your ideas and can’t get your name, beliefs, or history correct, then you know he did zero research. He came to the subject with a conclusion in hand and haphazardly filled in the necessary blanks to further his argument. Oh, unlike him, the people that he attacked know Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek and the history of their faith. They also are prolific writers and not to be trifled with; especially by folks that have never read their works.
Hey, Rev., you might wanna look at this verse:
“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.” Hosea 4:6.
Oh, quoting this verse reminds me that part of this sermon was also a diatribe railing against the idea that Christians should believe and obey God’s Law. Apparently, man’s law or Satan’s rule is perfectly ok for him, but it is unreasonable for us to keep God’s Law. This is literally the definition of antinomianism. I guess God is only interested in men’s souls but not in redeeming the whole man. Last I heard, this was considered a Greek heresy.
In the movie, Full Metal Jacket, the drill sergeant says you can give your heart to Jesus, but your ass belongs to the Corps!
Sorry Bro, but all of you either belongs to Jesus or you have no part in Him.
My Bible says that Christ reversed the curse and that the meek will inherit the earth not heaven. Our job under the dominion mandate is to bring every area of life into subjection to the Lord Jesus Christ.
As you can see, this guy is getting on my nerves. I really want to find a way to peacefully coexist with him since we live in the same small town, but all he wants to do is be the guy throwing people under the bus. Jesus said to love your neighbor not frag them. I guess a high body count on Facebook is his metric of a good day’s work.
I wish he would get the basic subscription level of Logos Bible Software.
For only $15 a month, he could get commentaries and Greek/Hebrew interlinear translations and all the tools necessary to at least make more informed study before making a fool out of himself. I don’t believe ministers need to know Greek and Hebrew but at least have the humility to know that you really don’t know it all. The arrogant, anti-intellectual King James only B.S. is really stupid and not the hill that any serious Christian should be willing to die on.
Oh, other things this guy promotes on Facebook
🤔 The moon landing was faked
🤔 The sun, moon, and stars revolve around the earth
🤔 The pledge of allegiance violates the first three Commandments
🤔 Churches that are 501.c3 have broken the first three Commandments
Consider this my after-action report on the recent gay pride event in Bonner Ferry.
Let’s start with a few facts.
Initial reports that 13 churches in town were coming together to host the counter event at the county fairgrounds were untrue. The actual number that I could confirm was more like three or four. Organizers—members of the local Bushnell clan—has reportedly planned for up to 1,000 people to show up. FYI that is almost half the population of the city. In reality, the reports that I received were that attendance was around 300.
Black Pearl Theater
Attendance at the gay pride event, per my estimates were as follows: about 20 on Friday night and Saturday, the daytime number was on the order of fifty to sixty. I was not present for the Saturday evening, adults only event.
Friday night, note police cars on left.
Saturday was all about the children. They brought in a traveling roadshow of circus freaks from Washington State (Spokane and neighboring areas).
Children’s groomer and friends
By circus freaks I mean drag queens and such that were grooming children to accept and participate in the deviant lifestyles that these folks embrace. On a Facebook post, I described seeing this as witnessing parents bring their children before Molech and then making them walk through the fire.
The protesters, A.K.A. our guys, were few in number and many were from outside the area. On Friday night, I would say we had eight to ten and Saturday we were able to field twelve to fourteen. Not everybody was there simultaneously.
I would describe our side as fractured in a myriad of ways.
Friday night: I showed up to hand out flyers (Bible tracts), another guy was giving out bottled water to all takers (he also donated food to the gay pride people earlier in the day as he wanted to be immunized of being called “hateful”), about five guys from another town showed up with large signs which looked like Romans on a campaign march, another guy brought a wireless mike so he could “street preach”, and a few others mostly stood around and watched.
Friday night visit with local PD.
Saturday: I was there with my flyers, another group of four was talking amongst themselves and then would read Bible passages out loud, another group of young men were actively talking to a few women attending the event (they later pulled out hymnals and sang a few songs), another guy brought a boom box type PA system to preach, the street preacher from the previous day attended the picnic and then was planning to preach during the evening session, and a few other folks also were of the crowd.
This being north Idaho, anytime conservatives gather, spies attempt to infiltrate groups. One person was pointed out to me by one of the groups in attendance as such a person. I agree that he didn’t fit in; however, whether he was from law enforcement, a plant from the rainbow mafia, or just weird I was not sure. He did his best to interact with each and every one there to protest.
Another divide was whether protesters should be confronting everyone like the preaching folks or just be passive and seek opportunities to strike up a conversation with attendees.
Street Preacher Bobby
A big divide was obvious in terms of messaging and communication. The big failure by Christians was invoking “Jesus” and “love” in the same paragraph. Many gay folks gleefully were proclaiming that Jesus loved them and thus were perplexed as to why we were there and opposing them. Such talk derailed the gospel “sharing” that was attempted by Christians protesting at the event. When your idea of the gospel is “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life” and the person that you are sharing with agrees, it knocks the wheel off the Campus Crusade method of evangelism. This tactic by the gay folks, knocked Christians off offense and put them on defense with no response.
This brings to mind one of Walter Martin’s early chapters in Kingdom of the Cults where he spends a whole chapter on vocabulary and defining terms. When you don’t take the time to do that, you talk past each other and never communicate the Gospel to others.
Local democrat party sign decorated with flags
The difference of course is that the gay folks claim that God accepts them without any need to repent. It echoes Paul in the book of Romans when he rhetorically asks if we should sin more so grace may abound.
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Romans 6: 1-2
Paul goes on to say you cannot sin and serve God simultaneously. Living to sin (lust) leads to eternal damnation not everlasting life.
Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. (v 12)
But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (v 22-23)
We need some training and planning before attempting this again. Too bad the professional clergy won’t touch this issue. As proven with Covid, they would rather shelter in place. As one group called our town’s clergy, “Hirelings, not shepherds.”
Lastly, what do we do with the folks that sat the whole thing out? Clearly, they are part of the problem too.
Perhaps, when dealing with defining “love” we might want to ask, “Which Jesus are we talking about?”
Somehow agreeing with to Doobie Brother that “Jesus is just alright with me” may be part of the problem.
This is another book recommended by Andrew Torba in the back of Christian Nationalism. The book is five chapters long and weighs in at about 150 pages. It was published in 2003. My recollection is that the guys at Berean Church in Sandpoint quoted one sentence from the book out of context and then threw Leithart under the bus as a heretic.
Review:
This book is like CS Lewis’ Mere Christianity in that it has lots of thought-provoking stuff and is trying to get readers to think outside of established categories about the Christian faith.
I cannot hope to “convince” readers or “prove” anything here, since I have certainly not provided enough argument or evidence to compel agreement. I hope instead to hint at, gesture toward, trace, or sketch what may be a fresh approach to the (mainly ecclesiological) issues I discuss, more to change readers’ angle of vision than persuade. (page 7).
Leithart is dissatisfied with the self-imposed limits that we as believers have allowed the secular world to impose on us. He feels strongly that we are all too willing to allow our faith to be boxed-in as a private affair between us and God and that we generally are unwilling to engage the world around us.
The Bible gives no hint that a Christian “belief system” might be isolated from the life of the Church, subjected to a scientific or logical analysis, and have its truth compared with competing “belief systems.” (page 14).
Though it has roots in the patristic period, Christianity in its more developed form is the Church’s adjustment of the gospel to modernity, and the Church’s consequent acceptance of the world’s definition of who we are and what we should be up to. Christianity is biblical religion disemboweled and emasculated by (voluntary) intellectualization and/or privatization. (page 17).
He places Christianity in one corner and in the other is the Church. The Church is both an assembly of believers (ecclesia) and a government (polis). The Church is a multi-language nation.
My complaint is more fundamental: we have accepted our liberal opponent’s account of who we are and no longer see that the gospel an is inherently political announcement, nor that the Church is an inherently political community. (page 38).
Leithart would find the notion of “me and Jesus is a majority” as laughable. The Church gives a believer purpose and meaning within a community.
Leithart argues that saving faith in Christ is not like “adding Jesus to my life” but is a completed surrender of my life and a completed adoption of Christ’s.
Conversion does not simply install a new “religious” program over the existing operating system. It installs a new operating system. (page 16).
Leithart concludes his book with ideas such as these:
Suppose the king is a liberal who tries to police the boundaries of the Church, telling the Church where it can and cannot speak, what it can and cannot do. In that case too, a clash is inevitable and, again, kings have a herd time winning such battles. …
On the other hand, if the Church appears preaching Christianity, the king is entirely capable of stealing the rhetoric and story and ideas of the Church to buttress his power. … Or, political powers may simply force Christianity into the private sphere—shoving ideas back into the brain and Christianity back into churches. Churches in the grip of Christianity will hardly blink when the liberal king tells them that that have to confine themselves to thinking pious thoughts. (page 149).
Application
Folks, this was written in 2003 but sounds like a perfect description of the total failure of the clergy in all denominations when confronted in 2020 with the Covid 19 order to shutdown all church worship and scatter the flocks of Christ. We, as believers, accepted the liberal lie that the Church was “non-essential” to our way of life and virtually ever minister, not only in the United States, but all of the West, complied without question. I can number all the churches in the United States that did not shutdown during Covid on one hand and still have fingers left. This is a huge indictment of the moral failure of modern churches.
The failure of churches during Covid is exactly the point Leithart is trying to make with this book. We have abandoned Christendom and replaced it with a pious, personal, and ineffective philosophy called “Christianity.”
The same moral failure lamented by Leithart will be played out next weekend when our community hosts its first gay pride event. Instead of protesting, local churches numbering as many as 13 congregations, will be holding a picnic at the fairgrounds as a “family friendly” alternative. They are expecting a crowd of 1,000 people at the event.
Except for one person that calls himself a street evangelist, nobody plans to be at the event to share Christ with these folks. I specifically asked my church leadership in the loudest voice that I could, why do we refuse to share Christ with these people? I said that we need more people in front of the venue protesting than they have attending it. Essentially, I was told that homosexuals are not “the elect” and that they should be ignored. Folks, if you ignore cancer, does it simply go away or spread? I submit to you that sin is a cancer, and it will spread like wildfire if not halted in its progress. To this end, I bought 100 tracts to hand-out at the event, and I will not be participating at the picnic.
Leithart’s book is worth a look. I suggest having multicolored highlighters and going through it two or three times to really get a feel for his arguments. This book is asking you to think outside your preconceived categories and view faith in Christ in terms of the early church not categories given us by the pagans that gave us the Enlightenment and modernity.
Petra was in the area last Friday night and I decided to go see them. They last toured about ten years ago.2024 is their fiftieth anniversary. Their first album was released in 1974. I have a copy of the LP and the CD.
Their concert was across the border in Creston, Canada. Since moving to north Idaho a year ago, I have never driven into Canada. I’m the only one in the family with a valid passport, but since my wife is out of town, so I decided to go.
Two weeks ago, I bought a VIP pass for $75 (Canadian). The pass was for an event starting at 5 PM. We were given a poster to get autographed and also allowed to get autographs on another item.
The following is a recap of my adventures that day.
I got up just before 7 and did my morning chores. My wife and I were on the road at 8 AM. At 10 AM we did our Costco run in Coeur d’Alene. We tried to do a Costco run the previous Friday but were not allowed into the building because somebody in the area decided to try moving a power pole with their car. They succeeded in knocking out power to parts of the town including Costco. Oh, inside the building they have a whole section of generators for sale but whatever.
We then went to Rathdrum for lunch at a dive called Nadine’s. They have a salad that faintly resembles the Yucatan salad from Dos Coyotes. Then I dropped my wife at the airport in Spokane and by 1 PM I was returning home to walk the dog and then headed to the concert. In preparation to go to the concert I got my passport and my copy of the first Petra LP. Yep, a vintage 1974 album titled “Petra.”
Near my house, we have two border crossings: Porthill and Eastport. The Porthill crossing is closer but closes at 7 PM. It used to be open longer but since Covid the hours have been shortened. I crossed at Porthill. It was easier than I thought. I was asked if I had any firearms or ammo. I replied, “No.” I was asked about my business and how long I would be staying. I told the man that I was going to a concert. He replied, “Oh, you’re going to see Petra?” I replied, “Yes.” I was then allowed into Canada.
Please understand that I was somewhat apprehensive to do this because all my other trips to Canada were to Victoria. In Victoria they drive on the wrong side of the road just like in England. Thankfully this part of British Columbia is like driving in the US except they use the evil metric system.
Creston is a small town of a few thousand people. I was very surprised that they landed a Petra concert. Just before the venue, I found a Dairy Queen, likely the only fast-food joint in town, and ordered a chicken sandwich. I then arrived at the community center and ate most of my dinner in the car. It was a multi-use facility.
The VIP event started about 5:15. The event was really laid-back. I told them that I was there for the VIP Petra event, and they let me in. The people running the VIP portion of the event had no list of names as to who had paid for the VIP pass, they just took me at my word and let me in the room.
Shortly after I got my pass, the band members, five in all, entered the room and were seated at one end. The band members were never introduced by name.
Bob Hartman (middle) John Schlitt to his right
It turns out that only one guy was an original member of the band. What years the others joined was never discussed. A question-and-answer period was held first. Most of the time was spent recounting the story of how John Schlitt came to replace Greg X Voltz as lead singer of the band. The story was not told by John, but the only remaining guy from the original band, Bob Hartman.
John was lead singer for a 1970’s rock band called “Head East.”
John got caught up in the rock n’ roll lifestyle and got so messed up on drugs that they fired him from the band. He hit bottom and “got saved” as they say in Evangelical circles. He then finished college and did geology and mining stuff in Utah for a few years. He thought he was done with music until Petra happened. The whole answer was about 20 minutes long, so I really am giving you the thumbnail version.
Oh, the one question that was deflected concerned whether there would be a live album recorded on this tour. The band equivocated on this idea. Folks, based on what I’ve been seeing, the live album will be recorded in Oklahoma City on July 26th.
Following the Q & A session, the autograph portion began. The band members signed whatever was presented to them. Besides my original Petra LP, there were backpacks, ball caps, and CD covers. I was surprised that I was the only one with an LP. The Petra LPs are being re-released along with remastered CDs by Boone’s Overstock and Girder Music.
As people were getting autographs, they had a person assigned to take photos of each person or group going through the line, so you got a personalized photo with the band. As of this writing, the photos are not on Facebook yet.
At the conclusion of the VIP event, I went out to my car and put my treasures in the car. I then went into the concert venue. Being that I’m in Canada, would it surprise you that the venue was on the floor of the local hockey rink.
The one question I almost asked was concerning the song, “God Gave Rock N’ Roll to You.” Per Wikipedia, it was originally done by Argent in 1971. Petra changed some lyrics and did it in 1977 and again in 1984. KISS did their own variation of it in 1991 for the movie Bill and Ted’s Bogus Adventure.
Having some time to kill, I looked at the merchandise for sale and Petra had zero music for sale: only shirts. I learned from the guy at the table that only merchandise manufactured in Canada was allowed to be sold at the concert. Also, they could not accept any form of payment except cash or PayPal. Even with international data roaming activated on my phone, I was unable to download the PayPal app. It’s probably been at least ten years since I tried using PayPal for any type of transaction, so I don’t even know if I still have an account with them. NAFTA be damned, international commerce is a pain in the rear.
The warm-up band came on stage about 7 PM. They were never introduced. I researched their name, it was “Revival.”
The band performed about seven songs. Their last song was a cover of “Jesus Freak.” Per Wikipedia, the song was originally done by DC Talk. I have heard it before and have a cover of it done by Larry Norman.
Revival
People say I’m strange, does it make me a stranger
Revival finished their set about 7:40. It was then announced that there would be break and Petra would take the stage at 8 PM.
Sure enough, Petra took the stage at 8 PM and played for an hour and a half. Some of the folks really got into it, singing and dancing, and occasionally clapping to the music. Other folks watched with less visible enthusiasm. I would say that the crowd was about four to five hundred people and most of the audience was between 40 to 60 years old.
The overall playlist was much like Petra’s Farewell CD with some other songs added. Also, the rock and acoustic medleys were longer. John Schlitt’s vocals were remarkable good; especially since the guy is probably in his seventies. He looks like an older version of Christopher Lloyd’s “Doc Brown” from Back to the Future.
Christopher Lloyd “Doc Brown”
Bob Hartman’s guitar solo was much the same as Farewell.
As I said previously, the band was never introduced but I think the other band members are:
Greg Bailey – Bass, cello, backing vocal
Cristian Borneo – Drums
John Lawry – Keyboards, keytar, backing vocal
Attached are some photos of the concert.
Following the concert, I hit the road and went to the other border crossing at Eastport. I must say that it was odd driving down unfamiliar mountain roads at nighttime with the speedometer at 100. After about 40 minutes, I finally arrived at the crossing back into the United States.
I was instructed to turn off my engine and then was hit with a barrage of questions. As best as I can remember they included the following:
Was there anyone else in my car?
Did I have over $10,000 with me?
Did I have alcohol or tobacco products?
Did I have any fresh fruit or vegetables?
Where was I coming from?
Where was I going?
I felt really unwelcome to be entering the US. Perhaps I should have answered in Spanish, it might have been quicker to be allowed into the country. It might be that I was the only person in a while the guy had a chance to talk with, I don’t know but he finally let me go. I walked in the door about 11 PM.
Now I just need to find a few frames for my autographed stuff.
Thanks to the Berean Church in Sandpoint Idaho and Politically Active Christians Political Action Committee (PAC PAC), I have had to start reading a few books to refute their claims about Christian Nationalism not being Christian. In their two-hour presentation they mention but never quote Andrew Torba and his running mate, Rev. Andrew Isker. The only thing they reference in their presentation are three books in the Recommended Reading list at the back of Torba’s book, Christian Nationalism.
Back when I was a Roman Catholic, I learned that there are sins of commission and sins of omission. Berean purposely commits the second in their presentation. They mention that Torba and Isker recommend a book on Christian Nationalism by Stephen Wolfe but omit the part that the book is “forthcoming”. This implies that Torba and Isker are aware the book is in the publishing pipeline, but “forthcoming” says to me that they haven’t seen it in its final form. Looks like I get to spend some money at Cannon Press in the next few weeks so I can pick up three or four more books on the issue. Like I really need more books in my reading que. (I’m reading my fourth book this week which just happens to be by Gary DeMar and is not related to the present topic.).
Berean also omits a book by Gary DeMar and skips most other people on the Recommended Reading list. I know for a fact that Gary DeMar does not like the label of “Christian Nationalist”, but he says that he understands what some people are trying to say by calling themselves that. He thinks it is the wrong label to use. This fact is also absent from the Berean presentation. You would think that when Torba and Isker recommending a book by a guy that doesn’t like the label “Christian Nationalist” that fact would be a relevant point in their presentation.
The full title of the book by Torba and Isker is Christian Nationalism: A Biblical Guide to Taking Dominion & Discipling Nations.
Christian Nationalism is a movement of rebuilding, reformation and revival. We are not trying to overthrow the existing state or even necessarily earn positions in the highest levels of power. We don’t need to because we are playing the long game and are busy building things that matter. … So that is exactly what we are building: a parallel Christian Society.
A glaring omission in the Berean presentation is that they never deal with the issue of Dominion. Berean never cites any Bible verses on what they think a Christian’s role should be in our culture. They only say that Christian Nationalists are wrong but offer nothing in its place. As Gary North used to say, “You can’t beat something with nothing” but at the end of the day, that’s all they offer. Defeat and retreat are not a winning strategy or a biblical one either.
Torba’s Christian Nationalism is essentially an optimistic and post-millennial view of history that is offered as an antidote to the poison of premillennial dispensational defeatist theology that permeates most churches in the West. The bottom line is that Jesus isn’t coming back for a few thousand more years so given that, what legacy do you plan to leave for the next few generations. Torba says we should be planning at least seven generations into the future. Play the long game and Christians will transform society. We need to “take some turf for Jesus” as Gary S Paxton used to sing.
One of the most important tasks for the Christian Nationalist is overcoming the idea that the world is going to end very soon. The Pilgrims and other settlers who came to found a new Christian nation were not doing so because they expected the world to end any minute now. They did so because they were aware of the promises that God has made in His Word, that:
All the ends of the world shall remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations shall worship before you. (Psalm 22: 27-28.)
And that:
“the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.” (Hab. 2:14.)
Torba also advocates for a variation of the strategy found in one of my all-time favorite books, “How the Irish Saved Civilization.”
Create parallel economic structures that showcase the difference between Christian culture and “the world”. Saint Patrick did this when he wished to convert a city. He set up a Christian community next to the city he wished to convert to show unbelievers that the followers of Christ had a better way to do things. Torba says that the current world system will collapse, and Christians need to be ready to step-in and help rebuild society after that happens.
The biggest complaint I have is that Torba doesn’t adequately footnote his books. There is no index of Scripture quotations, no index of topics, no index of people mentioned, and few if any citations of people quoted in his books.
For example, in Christian Nationalism, Torba quotes David Chilton several times but never says where the quotes are from. I was a friend of David’s and I recognize the quotes but please don’t ask me which book or lecture is being quoted.
All heathen cultures have been statist and tyrannical, for a people who reject God will surrender themselves and their property to a dictator. (I Sam 8: 7-20.) — David Chilton
Only one chapter in the book has any footnotes at all and that is the last chapter documenting that the original colonies were all founded as Christian outposts (colonies or nations) sanctioned by the British and under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
Torba claims to be taking the Great Commission of Jesus literally and wanting to disciple all nations.
There is an abundance of biblical evidence for Christ’s present reign over heaven and earth. And the strongest is in the Great Commission (Matt 28: 18): “And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.’ Jesus is reigning already. He doesn’t have some authority over this world, He has all of it.
This is mainstream Christian theology. Sadly, many Christians just don’t believe in it these days; hence the mess we are in. Torba also does his best to make the push for Christian Nationalism open to Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians. You might say his slogan is, “If Jesus is your Lord, welcome on board.”
The most controversial chapter in the book is his refutation of the phrase “Judeo-Christian.” The “Judeo” is not based on the Old Testament but on a rejection of Jesus as Messiah and thus incompatible with Christianity. His comments are spot-on concerning this issue.
Talmudic Judaism is a new religion made up by those who rejected Jesus Christ. It is not the precursor to Christianity; it postdates it. By using the term [Judeo-Chirstian] we are reinforcing the idea that their religion is just like ours except they don’t believe in Jesus yet, when in reality it is a new religion formed out of the total rejection of the Son of God.
Oh, I got my copy of the book from Amazon. It was one of those print on demand books and my hard cover copy is 70 pages long. Yes, I’d recommend this book.
Note: in the ten minutes (or less) that it takes you to read this, I saved you from wasting an additional two hours of your life watching the video that I reviewed. My notes were made as I watched this video, so they are jumpy.
Here in north Idaho, there is a church that is preaching against Christian Nationalism. This is not too remarkable to me since many claiming the name of Christ are not really Christians, but this instance is different. Why? Because this congregation controls a political action committee. This PAC has been a tool wielded against conservative Christian candidates. Since they have interjected themselves into the public square, I had decided to critique their claims.
Before I begin, I have a few comments.
First, there is no such thing as Christian Nationalism. This term is a strawman constructed by the Left to hammer conservatives and Christians. There is no leader of Christian Nationalism because there are no dues, membership, or anything else. It’s just a label that Liberals use to pigeonhole folks that they don’t like. Christian Nationalism is a category of people that the Left wish to dismiss in much the same way as dog excrement on the bottom of their designer shoes.
That being said, many conservatives and Christians have decided to “own” the label. For those ignorant in history or who spent too much time in public school, the name “Christian” was coined by the opponents of Jesus as a way to insult and belittle His followers. Instead of fighting the label, the Church decided to own it and thus were OK to be called something intended as an insult.
Anyone can claim to be a Christian Nationalist or called that by anyone that wishes to belittle them or be dismissive of their views of a conservative. The term itself has little to no context or content. However, why let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory?
Lastly, some folks call themselves Christian Nationalists just to get a rise from the Left and folks at places like the Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League.
Some Christians don’t like the label because it is an inaccurate summary of their beliefs.
Anyway, The Berean Church in Sandpoint Idaho has managed to construct a two-hour presentation on the evils of Christian Nationalism. What follows will be a few comments on their presentation. The video is bookmarked in two locations.
The presentation is given by three individuals. Parts I and IV are by a black gentleman that is not identified, the next portion is given by the pastor, Michael Kohl, and a third part is by another fellow. Parts of the audio are faint and hard to understand. The video was posted to YouTube on Jan 19, 2024.
Kohl graduated for Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia which is Presbyterian and also attended the Reformed Episcopal Seminary (Philadelphia). He was in the Presbyterian Church In America (PCA) a somewhat liberal Presbyterian denomination, and has also worked in Brethren and independent Churches. The church’s statement of faith is the Five Protestant Solas with no elaboration.
Part I
This presentation begins with a PowerPoint slide Understanding the backdrop.
The four bullet points which are explained in more detail later are:
What is the term Christian Nationalism?
Who are the thought leaders of modern Christian Nationalism?
Mapping out the Christian Nationalism operation
Discovering how it matters to Idaho
First up is a video clip which is a promo for Rob Reiner’s movie attacking Christianity, God and Country. By-the-way, this turkey really bombed at the box office so don’t feel bad if you never saw it. Oh, Reiner hates Christians and always has.
My Comment on God and Country
The Hollywood reporter says of the film:
And, as the film points out in exhaustive detail, Christian Nationalism is very much a political, rather than religious, movement. The movement posits that America is a Christian nation and that the founders intended it as such. It seeks to roll back feminism, LBGTQ rights and abortion, and to either introduce Christianity to public schools or substitute them with private Christian schools funded by vouchers.
Any rational Christian believes all the things lamented by the Hollywood Reporter.
Back to the presentation
The presenter then critiques the Reiner promo and then steers people to Wikipedia for a definition of Christian Nationalism. He says he doesn’t like Liberals critiquing Christian Nationalism but then uses them as a source to do so. This is circular reasoning. He then keys on the names Andrew Torba and Nick Fuentes because they are mentioned by Wikipedia.
First up is a critique of Nick Fuentes. The clip shown is Fuentes talking of tearing down inclusive forces and kicking the Republican Party in the butt. I can tell you what’s probably coming next because Nick mentioned the word “white” and that is the racism card. In the context of DEI, Nick is right to say white people, and doubly so if they’re male, get screwed by the Democrat quota system.
I resumed the clip and Fuentes says he wants to drag the Republican Party back inside the doors of the church. FYI in the early years of the Republican Party, the Republican Party was called the Episcopal Church at prayer. The anti-slavery movement was largely a Christian one and was instrumental in the foundation of the Republican Party.
Then the presenter goes to Vincent James Foxx. Online, he goes by Vincent James. Vincent is a Republican and a self-identified Roman Catholic.
My comments on Vincent James
Vincent spends most of his podcasts talking against illegal immigration, discrimination against white people—a rection or pushback to those pushing DEI—and he points out the part played by prominent Jewish people in promoting the tearing-down of our institutions. He is not anti-Semitic, but against Jewish people born in America that have more allegiance to Israel than America. He makes it clear—if you listen—that he doesn’t hate Jews as a group be disagrees with wealthy Jewish people that teardown others to get special advantages for themselves and their allies. Rarely does he talk of Christianity except as it is affected by things like the recently adopted federal bill which gives special protections against anti-Semitic speech. This bill adopts language defining anti-Semitism which was written by a Jewish special interest group. It prohibits speaking against Zionism and makes the biblical account of Jesus’ crucifixion illegal. Yet, it got the full support of Zionist Christians but makes essential parts of the Gospel illegal to say. I think we will have more to say about Dispensational, premillennial theology before this presentation is concluded but we will see.
Back to the presentation.
The presenter plays a clip of Vincent being sarcastic and over the top talking about Christian Nationalism rolling back liberal social policy. Oh, but the presenter doesn’t really acknowledge that James is being sarcastic but takes him literally which in reality is taking him out of context. Folks, you don’t get thousands of followers online without some showmanship in your presentation. Vincent James has about 70 thousand followers on his Bitchute channel. He is on Rumble and several other places as well.
After a quick clip of James, the presenter goes on to some guy named Dave Reily. Dave Reily was recently hired by the Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF). IFF is not a part of Christian Nationalism they lean libertarian, so I don’t know why it matters.
Somehow some of these guys are Facebook friends or something like that or they reposted a meme that someone put online so now they are all part of some great conspiracy. This is really a stretch.
Switching gears slightly we then go to Andrew Torba of the website Gab. Gab is a site dedicated to free speech. It is intended to be a safe haven for Christians and other that don’t wish to be censored by BIG Tech. Vincent James has a page on Gab which is where I first come across him. Torba wrote a book on Christian Nationalism that sounds like mash-up of parts of How the Irish Saved Civilization and Christian Reconstruction.
In this book, Torba has a recommended reading section. The presenter cherry picks three guys, Doug Wilson and two of his fellow travelers in Moscow Idaho. Please note that he ignores everyone else on the list.
My Comments on Berean’s Treatment of Andrew Torba
This entire presentation of over two hours never once quotes from Andrew Torba or his book on Christian Nationalism. Nor does it quote from anyone else writing on the topic. I suspect because Torba is repackaging Theonomy and Christian Reconstruction, whereas Stephen Wolfe’s book is on political theory. Political Theory is what should be but normally omits how to get there. The reader is left with the challenge of how to implement the ideas presented.
Back to the presentation
Also, please note that we have crossed the line from Roman Catholic to Protestant people. Torba, Wilson, and others have a much more biblical and higher view of Scripture and how it should be applied to public policy than Vincent James and others.
Wilson then gets attacked by the presenter for one line in one book that Wilson wrote. Folks Wilson has written hundreds of books, articles, and other documents. Look, He is a prolific writer. I know that Wilson has many supporters and detractors but to dismiss him outright on the basis of one sentence is sloppy and disingenuous.
Oh, here is the offending statement.
But breaking covenant occurs because of unbelief, lack of faith, and because of lack of good works.
Whether this is related to James and the faith and works debate is not stated since we are denied context for the quotation.
Then the presenter goes after Peter Leithart for this quote which is never put into context.
Salvation must take a social form, and the Church is that social form of salvation, the community that already (though imperfectly) has become the human race as God created it to be, the human race that is becoming what God intends it to be. The Church is neither a reservoir of grace nor an external support for the Christian life. The Church is salvation.
This sounds like a variation of St. Cyprian, “No one can have God for his Father, who does not have the Church for his mother.”
Whatever larger point Leithart is making is never given. As Walter Martin famously said, “A text without a context, is a pretext, usually for error.”
On the basis of this quote, the presenter expects us to dismiss Leithart too.
Stephen Wolfe wrote “The Case for Christian Nationalism.” Many of their PowerPoint slides have the first name spelled a “Steven” not “Stephen.”
Drum roll, and the single pull quote from his book is:
I am not calling for a monarchial regime over every civil polity, and certainly not an autocracy, though I envision a measured and theocratic Caesarism—the prince as world-shaker for our time, who brings a Christian people to self-consciousness and who, in his rise, restores their will for good.
Again, this quote is presented without context. I can think of several possible and contradictory understandings of this quote but without context, we don’t know what the point of it really is. However, it really begs the question as to whether civil government should be based on God’s law or men’s. Ultimately these are the only two possibilities.
Wow. Surprise. We actually get a second quote from Wolfe. Presented again without context or elaboration.
Many claims in the book will worry many American conservative Christians. I’ve said that political governments can suppress false religion, establish a church, even require people to attend church. I also wrote about a ‘Christian prince,’ which is not the sort of political title one would find in America. I will not walk back those claims.
The presenter expects us to be shocked at the quote but should we really? First, we have no context for the above statement. However, I know that parts of it are easily proven true. Let’s look at a few parts of the above.
Politics can suppress false religion. Two examples. The United States outlawed the Mormon practice of polygamy. Currently, many are trying to outlaw displays of Satanic worship in public schools—especially as clubs on elementary campuses—and displays in public places. Plurality does have limits; especially, in a nation founded on Christian values. Oh, and don’t forget that all law is moral and an establishment of someone’s religion.
A State can establish a church. Yep, this is also a true statement. The majority of the 13 colonies had state sponsored churches when they ratified the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution only prohibits establishing a national church. Ditto for test oaths. Tax money also went to state sponsored churches to pay their clergy and other church expenses.
Requiring church attendance by citizens might be more problematic; however, it would not surprise me if the Pilgrims and other early settlers had such a requirement. Again, what is the context?
As for the “Christian Prince.” We are not given any context, however, my first thought is of Machiavelli’s book “The Prince.” Other ideas might include Constantine or a Trump-like figure that used Scripture as his guide to rule.
The presenter does not analyze this statement, just mocks it and dismisses it out of hand.
Congratulations. You have now endured about 38 minutes of this presentation.
Part II
With a horrible, stutter of the video, we then get a new presenter, that I assume is Pastor Kohl.
We will now get a theological critique of Christian Nationalism… well maybe.
Rev Kohl starts with a definition of Christianity or says he will, then takes a detour of sorts thru the book of Romans. He tries contrasting the Apostle Paul versus Stephen Wolfe, but Wolfe is not given in context, just one sentence, again without context. Then he goes back to Genesis and talks about Abraham.
At this point Kohl slaps Doug Wilson on a quote dealing with baptism. Again, there is no context. I wonder if Wilson advocates infant baptism while Kohl does not. And who cares? What does this have to do with Christian Nationalism? Probably nothing.
On one of the slides, Kohl has Abraham’s son Isaac spelled as “Isac”. Another minus point for Kohl.
Then he jumps to Wolfe again with a series of quotes on nationalism that seem varied. As usual, they are presented without context. Then he jumps to Moses and quotes some stuff about his wife who may have been black. I’m not sure of his point. I think that Kohl is trying to build a foundation that Christian Nationalists are all racists. Hope he’s better than that. He is on a rant about groups and factions. I will wait and see where this goes.
Now he pulls a quote from Wolfe that says the invisible church and the visible church are the same group. Again, no context so I don’t know if there is more to this than stated. We also don’t know what Wolfe’s church affiliation is so we don’t know if we are defining terms the same way or differently? Lastly, as a practical matter, we don’t know the difference between the visible and invisible church, God is the one that sees men’s hearts and knows who is truly save not us.
The next Wolfe quote is:
But public heresy has the potential to harm other’s souls by causing doubt or distraction or by disrupting public peace. The magistrate, who must care for the souls of his people, may act to suppress that heresy.
In my mind, I think of claims that homosexuality, abortion, or transgenderism are biblically ok. This would be heresy that casts doubt and disrupts the public peace.
Kohl mocks this whole statement but by what standard does he expect us to be government if not the Bible?
Kohl rants on about the visible vs invisible church and that Christian Nationalists have this wrong as a way for them to lord power over the rest of us. He states this as fact but never proves it. The scholarship used to construct this presentation is really poor.
As I stated at the first, there is no leader of Christian Nationalism. It is a strawman invented by liberals. Some of us are ok to own the label instead of demanding a new or different one.
Kohl tries to make out fellow believers as Judaizers. He again spanks Doug Wilson on baptism. Based on the quotes cited, Wilson believes that baptism is membership into the covenant and thus a sign of one’s salvation. This is not a radical Christian view unless maybe you are a Baptist which Kohl doesn’t appear to be. Children that are baptized are treated as believers as long as they walk in the faith. Baptized children are presumed saved. They have covenant membership and should be allowed access to the Lord’s Table, Holy Communion, or whatever you want to call it. As they get older it is assumed that they will make the faith their own via a decision, confirmation, or some other act. If they don’t then a time may come when they are not longer covenant members in good standing.
There it goes, “Judaizers were the original Christian Nationalists.”
Kohl says, Christian Nationalists believe in Jesus plus something else as the basis of salvation and that is why they are wrong. I find this troublesome because he has produced zero quotes that this is the case. He hasn’t tied salvation to any sort of political movement. It’s all smoke and mirrors.
Kohl’s Three Card Monty lost the pea a long time ago, but his listeners are supposed to be in awe because the cups are still being shuffled about.
This presentation is empty of substance. The only point he has made so far is that there is a difference between the visible and invisible church and Mr. Wolfe might be shaky on that point. To me it’s a secondary issue.
I’m an hour and twenty minutes into this thing and I have yet to hear what Christian Nationalists want to do in a political way that is at variance with the Bible or why they are objectionable. Furthermore, what is the Berean Christian Fellowship’s more biblical alternative?
Mercifully it is intermission. I’m taking a pit stop. We have one hour remaining in this presentation.
This section is presented by a third person. Again, none of the speakers have been introduced.
The presenter is promising to give a history of Christian Nationalism. He references the Roman Church and pulls a quote from Leithart that sounds rather Roman. I quote only the latter part:
… so there can be no Church without sacraments. Since there can be no salvation without the Church, since indeed, the Church is salvation, there is no salvation without the sacraments.
I can see why some might object to this statement, but what does it have to do with Christian Nationalism? The Church is the Bride of Christ so there is a sense in which this is true. Also, the Church is charged with administering the sacraments. Yes, technically salvation is thru the sacrifice of Christ but all those saved by Him are part of His Bride the Church. Again, without context, I feel that this quote is being manipulated by the presenters.
The next section is some history on the Reformation. In the midst of this topic, the presenter interjects another quote by Wolfe. Again, without context. The word “who” in this quote (below) could refer to God or the prince. I can’t tell which, but it makes a huge difference in the meaning of this sentence.
The prince enlivens laws not as an agent of coercion but as the divinely sanctioned vicar of God who binds conscience to just applications of natural law, as one who directs public reason.
The reoccurrence of “the prince’ makes me harken back to Machiavelli. It is worth asking if Wolfe believes Machiavelli’s The Prince was a serious treatise of politics or a satirical document. The former is the view of most academics, but the latter is my position on this work.
The presenter bashes the idea of the prince also being the spiritual leader of the nation. Whether Wolfe advocates this or is just mimicking Machiavelli or this is in a different context altogether is unknown. I think the presenter is trying to equate Wolfe’s ideas with an Anglican view of Christianity where the king is both political and spiritual head of the nation. The U.S. Constitution prohibits this from happening by outlawing a national church. King Saul (and later David & Jesus) exercised the offices of prophet, priest, and king at the same time. This is not the American system but is clearly a biblical idea.
The presenter then quotes some fellow named Dan Fisher for writing,
“[preachers] had been laying the groundwork for the [American] revolution by preaching for years that believers could not separate their religious convictions from their political positions and actions.”
Folks isn’t that what Christian Nationalists are advocating? Religious convictions should not be separated from their political positions and actions. In other words, your faith should be reflected in how you live your life the other six days of the week. What’s wrong with that?
Oh, the last sentence of the pull quote by Fisher is:
It was clear they saw no contradiction in mixing politics and religion.
The presenter keeps going back to Wolfe’s book and contrasting his view with other writings. Folks, it’s really dumb to do this. Who says they are followers of Wolfe? I’ve never met anyone who even knows who he is. I have looked at lots of videos by Vincent James and read stuff by Torba and Wilson and never heard of Wolfe or his ideas mentioned. This is a longform strawman presentation where we get to spank Wolfe like a piñata.
Finally, he gets to his point, “the American Revolution was a violation of Christian Nationalism.”
His thesis is that King James of England was a Christian Nationalist, and the Pilgrims were fleeing to American to escape Christian Nationalism. To these guys at Berean, Christian Nationalists want to destroy our country and establish a monarchy in its place. Sorry, I only met one guy in my life that ever wanted a monarchy in the United States, and he died last year.
Now the presenter is claiming to go to the Bible to see what it says about government. Oh, the time counter is at one hour, 47 minutes. Wanna bet they call themselves a Bible church?
Their first assertion is, “Political power comes ultimately from God but practically from the will of the people.” The presenter goes to the writings of Moses where Moses sets up the rulers of tens, hundreds, and thousands. Then to Saul and then David. He is trying to claim that the Old Testament political system was a republic like ours’.
He then goes to quotes, again and again by Wolfe, concerning the prince. I think it’s clear that Wolfe is not talking specifically about America and how it should be governed but it is an update to The Prince or written in much the same style as a political theory book.
Finally, two hours in, we get to Romans 13, a favorite home to heretics and antinomians that really believed the two-weeks-to-flatten-the-curve BS. After a cursory mention of the passage, we go to secular political theory with Hans Eysenck’s Theory of Government. Oh, another misspelling on their PowerPoint slides as his last name was spelled “Eyseneck”.
In the name of fairness, I went to the fount of all authority in political matters, at least for these presenters, Wikipedia. There I learned that Eysenck forged much of the data used on his work, and no one has been able to replicate key parts of it. The data used for his political information was manipulated as well. Then the presenter goes to several other charts on politics in rapid succession. A biblical model of how we should be governed or what the rules should be followed is no where to be seen. With ten minutes remaining, he gets to a model of American government that emphasizes four points: the rule of law, limited government, government does not control access to God, and salvation is individual.
Part IV
Wow, with eight minutes left we get another part and another presenter. (same guy as Part I.)
Christian Nationalism in not Christian or American
Christian Nationalism is not the answer to our problems.
Christian Nationalism is just another flavor of tyranny.
Have an answer based on biblical principles on which our nation was founded.
Berean Church has carefully cherrypicked Christian Nationalism to make a case that can’t really be made. If they were honest then they would have dealt with Torba’s book on Christian Nationalism as well as Stephen Wolfe’s. Dominion is not mentioned at all in this presentation even thought it is found from the earliest pages of Genesis to Revelation.
Berean Church says that Christian Nationalism is not the answer, but they never offer any alternatives. They are silent on what the Bible says a civil government should do. Should we infer that God doesn’t care?
Again, Berean Church uses pull quotes from one book to try to make their case about all Christian Nationalists. Their claim that all people calling themselves Christian Nationalists advocate for tyranny is ridiculous. Even the things that they quote from Wolfe don’t support that claim. If the Biden and Obama administrations prove anything, it’s that you don’t need a monarchy to live under tyranny. Ditto for Canada and Australia.
Knowing biblical principles on how our nation was founded are great but when folks around us deny the authority of Scripture and the church is silent on today’s social and cultural issues then what good is that? How does the Bible speak to our problems now? Again, Berean Church is silent.
The words of Gary North, R.J. Rushdoony, and others are echoing in my mind, you can’t beat something with nothing. Or if you prefer, the question posed in the 1970’s and 80’s by Francis Schaffer, How Should We Then Live?
Sorry, but I don’t see Christian Nationalism as a quest to force a monarchy onto the United States. I see it as a call for Christians to bring biblical answers to bear on the real world instead of Christians hiding it their pews hoping to be raptured so they won’t have to reap what they have sewn. Christian Nationalism is a call for the Church to get off its butt and redeem the time because the days are evil.
Andrew Torba signs every email that he sends with the words “Christ is King.” He does not advocate for the United States to be ruled by a king because we already have a king, and his name is Jesus. Torba does want Christians to be free from being cancelled by the Left and advocates that we have parallel structures that are truly free of censorship. This is similar to what Saint Patrick did to evangelize Ireland.
Vincent James does not advocate for a monarchy in the United States. However, he does advocate for people to have the same rules for their friends and enemies. He despises double standards; especially, when he is a member of the group being singled out for discriminatory treatment. I think he would agree that men should be judged by the content of their character.
I have read the Boniface Option. It is short, whitty, and has a large dose of sarcasm. It calls for men to be men and laments the societal decay of our nation.
I’m not a follower of anybody critiqued in this presentation except Jesus and they didn’t have much to say about him which is sad. My views on the Bible were formed before there was such a thing as Christian Nationalism and, in some circles, they are even more controversial. The Bible says, “For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” Let’s start with that statement and work together as we are able instead of trying to manufacture new ways to unchurch each other.
Last fall, I bought a live album recorded in the 1980’s off the artist’s [Mylon LeFevre] website. Seems he followed his parent’s footsteps and ended up in the ministry. As it turns out, this guy had died about three weeks before I placed my order. Anyway, I ended up on the ministry’s email list. This was my first direct exposure to the Pentecostal end of Christendom in many years.
The artist’s wife is carrying on the ministry and she is palling around with Kenneth Copeland.
Tomorrow, April 5th would have been Mylon’s and my 26th wedding anniversary. It was the day Kenneth and Gloria Copeland, along with my Pastors, George and Terri Pearsons, set me apart and ordained me into full time ministry.
Copeland is a guy I haven’t crossed path with since my second year of college. I had a roommate that played Copeland’s radio show in the dorm room. I’m sure he’s the radio preacher that I heard claim that if you were in prison and gave your life to Christ that not only would God forgive you of your sin, but you would be forgiven in the eyes of man and be released from prison. Apparently, when Jesus makes you free, he really makes you free.
A few days ago, I received a new email update that just blew my mind. I will quote the relevant part below and then we can talk further. I tried to find a URL with the same content but was unable to locate a copy in cyberspace. As a result, I will quote extensively to show that I am responding in context.
God recently instructed me to make a petition for the future of this ministry. We’ve started a new chapter and turned the page. God is writing my story and He’s writing yours too. As we trust Him, it will be a beautiful story. But in order to move forward, we must focus on what we know, NOT on what we don’t know. The Word is always our safe place. God is not a man that He can lie. His Word will never return void. Job 22:28-29 AMPC says we “DECIDE and DECREE a thing, and it shall be established for (us;) and the light [of God’s FAVOR] shall shine upon (our) ways.” Did you get that? We decide, not God. The verse continues to explain when situations arise that tempt us to be discouraged, we SAY, “There is a lifting UP!” So, I declare we’re going UP in this ministry!
Emphasis in the original.
First the biblical passage Job 22: 28 – 29 (KJV)
Thou shalt also decree a thing, and it shall be established unto thee: and the light shall shine upon thy ways. When men are cast down, then thou shalt say, There is lifting up; and he shall save the humble person.
Who was speaking, to whom, and what was the context?
The book of Job is about a man sorely tested by Satan—with God’s permission—and then three friends of Job try to comfort him by being critical of Job and trying to prove to him that he deserved the punishment.
This chapter of dialogue is spoken by Eliphaz. Eliphaz believed that riches and material blessings were proof of a person following God and being upright. This is a popular myth that many still believe is true to this day. This myth was very evident in the time of Jesus and is seen throughout the Gospels. The belief is that the rich are so because they obey God and are blessed; likewise, the poor are poor for disobedience. Scripture makes it clear that this might be the case but not always. The rich might very well be rich by stealing and being greedy or criminals or obtaining their wealth in immoral ways. A quick read of Psalms or Proverbs makes this abundantly clear. For example, Psalm 73: 12 “Behold, these are the ungodly, who prosper in the world; they increase in riches.” Clearly prosperity does not equal godliness.
In 1710, Matthew Heny stated this on the passage in Job.
The answer of Eliphaz wrongly implied that Job had hitherto not known God, and that prosperity in this life would follow his sincere conversion. The counsel Eliphaz here gives is good, though, as to Job, it was built upon a false supposition that he was a stranger and enemy to God.
OK, so the passage in Job is not spoken by Job or God. The book makes it plain that Job was righteous and did nothing to deserve punishment. Thus, the only righteous characters in Job are Job and God. Every other character in the book is wrong in one way or another. Anyone that understands the book knows that all advice given to Job by his friends was in error. Thus, when you see this passage being brought forth as the way to conduct your life, beware. A yellow or red flag should be waving in your mind.
Let’s go through the paragraph one step at a time.
“God recently instructed me…” Like in an audible voice or via friends or His Word? I grant that God talks more than we listen but …
“We’ve started a new chapter and turned the page.” OK, your husband died, and your life continues.
“God is writing my story and … yours”. We trust Him. We are faithful to Him.
“But…”
Now comes the set-up. There is a sense in which this can be an orthodox Christian thing but not necessarily. She is in essence saying we walk by the light God has given us and we don’t know everything; like maybe the future, but we trust Him.
“The Word is always a safe place.” Really? The Word is a sword. Or if you prefer, “And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.” Matthew 21: 44. The Word shows us our need and God’s remedy. I wouldn’t describe that as “safe.” The use of “safe” here harkens back to Narnia where the question was asked as the whether Aslan was tame.
Then she quotes part of Numbers 23: 19
God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
And then Isaiah 55: 11
So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
This verse is often understood as God’s Word going forth to either bring men to salvation or hardening their hearts for judgement.
“The special “word” which the prophet has here in mind is the promise, so frequently given, of deliverance from Babylon and return in peace and joy to Palestine. But he carries his teaching beyond the immediate occasion, for the benefit of the people of God in all ages.
Finally, we arrive at the central thesis of the entire email; namely, the verses from Job which I previously quoted.
Thou shalt also decree a thing, and it shall be established unto thee: and the light shall shine upon thy ways.
Job … says we “DECIDE and DECREE a thing, and it shall be established for (us;) and the light [of God’s FAVOR] shall shine upon (our) ways.” Did you get that? We decide, not God.
Red flag alert.
“We decide, not God.”
Folks, this email is claiming that we can tell God to do something, and He MUST do it? Wow. This is a bold and arrogant statement.
The Pulpit Commentary notes that this verse has “a touch of audacity.” No kidding.
Gill’s Exposition states, “Strictly speaking, this is only true of God, whose decrees are unfrustrable, whose counsel shall stand, and the thoughts of his heart be established to all generations; and frequently so it is, according to an usual saying, man appoints, but God disappoints …”
Is this what Matthew 21: 22 means? “And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.”
Clearly this author would say “yes” with no caveats or restrictions. Name it and claim it. God must do what we decide. Doesn’t that make us God or at least make God, not be God?
Here again there is the implied condition (as in Matthew 7:7) that what is asked is in harmony with the laws and will of God. If it were not so it would not be asked in faith, and every true prayer involves the submission of what it asks to the divine judgment.
Munster’s Hebrew Gospel reads it, “in prayer, and in faith”; and the Arabic version renders it, “in prayer with faith”; both to the same purpose, and aptly express the sense of the words, which design the prayer of faith; or that prayer which is put up in the strength of faith; and is of great avail with God: for whatever is asked in faith, agreeable to the will of God, which is contained in his covenant, word, and promises, and makes for his glory, and the good of his people, shall be given …
Gill’s Exposition
Does God really give us a blank check to give us anything we like? Is He really the giant ATM or Santa Claus in the sky? Must God do what we tell Him?
NOPE
God makes it clear that His ways are not our ways.
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. — Isaiah 55:8
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. — Isaiah 55: 9
Jesus said if we ask anything of the Father that we shall receive.
And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive. — Matthew 21: 22
However, it must be in accordance with His will.
And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him. — I John 5: 14 – 15
James, the brother of Jesus, said it this way:
“Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.” — James 4: 3
If you look a little further at the Scriptures, you will see that Eliphaz was wrong. We don’t tell God what to do. He is the Great King. We are to come before him in the name of Jesus and make our request according to his will. Sometimes God will grant our petitions to him, but he is under no obligation to do so. God will do what is best for us and quite often it is the hard way and not the easy one.
“Naming and claiming” or commanding God to do something just because we want it, is the clay spitting in the potter’s face. It’s more than a spiritual tantrum, its open rebellion against God. You can ask God for a million dollars or a new house or a cure for your cancer, but He is under no obligation to give it to you. The Scriptures are clear that we are to depend on Him. If anything, the trails of this life show us just how shallow and superficial such “stuff” is.
In a heartbeat, I’d trade everything I have, just to have my son back. I’d gladly give up my material possessions and my very life to see my son returned, but the truth is I have no control over such things. My wife and I pray daily and weep often that he is lost. His loss is a daily burden on both of us.
God doesn’t promise us a life of easy and prosperity; instead, he asks us to take up our cross and follow him. None of us is promised tomorrow. We certainly don’t have the right to expect anything from God, but he gives us generously as he sees fit.
Lastly, you will find that a form of judgement from God is giving us what we want.
His judgment, at least on this side of eternity, is to give sinners exactly what they want in preparation for the final day of judgment. And this is manifestly just, for sinners not only sin, but they take the extra step of justifying their sin and the sin of others. They approve of sin—calling evil good and good evil—and they encourage others to do so as well [Romans 1] (v. 32).
Prosperity, as the world defines it, is often just a way for God to turn up the heat on folks when judgement day rolls around. Anyone claiming that God must do anything we tell him to do is preaching “another gospel” and not the one delivered once and for all to the saints.
All law is legislating morality. All law is religious. Ditto for other political acts. The is no neutrality. This is a figment of the imagination. Those claiming neutrality are simply using such a claim to force their will on others while trying to stifle any opposition as they impose their morality on others.
Such was the case yesterday when the President of the United States, for the first time in the history of the Republic, purposely dissed any proclamation of Easter and thanking God for so great a salvation. (OK, Obama got close to this, but Joe went even further.) Joe proclaimed Easter Sunday as Transgender day of Visibility. Furthermore, no Christian symbols were allowed on any Easter eggs at the traditional White House Easter Egg Hunt. Yep, I know bunnies and eggs are not really Christian but in our Hallmark culture, the two have been baptized as Easter symbols.
Biden and company have been in an all-out war on Christianity—as was Obama when sleepy Joe was his Vice-President.
Biden—who thinks he can somehow be pro-abortion (for all nine months of the pregnancy)—and a Roman Catholic in good standing is simply an evil man. The spirit of antichrist is the platform of the Democrat Party (and of many Republicans too).
As for the cult of sterility, they are claiming 28 feast days and three months of the Julian Calendar in their attempt to abolish Christianity.
Fox News Digital found at least 28 other related holidays celebrated in the U.S., including International Asexuality Day, International Day of Pink, Day of Silence, Harvey Milk Day, Pansexual and Panromantic Awareness Day and International Drag Day.
There are also entire months devoted to LGBT causes or commemorations, including Pride Month in June, LGBT History Month in October and Transgender Awareness Month in November.
Biden should not be flying the rainbow flag or proclaiming any fag days to start with. Transgenderism is even more evil than homosexuality. It is a false and destructive religion. Changing one’s name is a sign of it being a religion. Thinking that one can change their gender is hubris and a type on mental illness. Thinking its God’s fault because He made you the wrong gender is blasphemy. On the face of it, transgender ideology violates at least half of the Ten Commandments.
To promote transgenderism (and a lot of other false crap in our society) is to tear down the Christian roots of our country.
Oh, we have known that Sunday March 31st, 2024, was Easter Sunday for at least the last four hundred years. The church calendar was figured out to the year 8,000 back in the 1600’s. So, there’s no excuse for a conflict… unless you want to have one.
