Author: David Morrill

Categories
Church News Worship Music

Theological Song Review: More Like Jesus

Church worship trends in one of two directions. Either it progresses towards higher, God-pleasing, more exclusive worship practice and proclamation, or it moves towards more generalized, ecumenical, and man-pleasing practice. The God of the Bible and his gospel are exclusive, and the more specific the identity, works, and majesty of the Lord, the higher and more God-honoring the worship. While we may experience good feelings and should be edified by our participation, bringing a sacrifice of praise that glorifies the true God for who He truly is must be the main priority of our worship gathering. The material brought into the worship gathering is a prime indicator of the standards, seriousness, and direction of a church’s worship, and (as we’ve discussed before) the visible church’s worship practice continues to suffer from a stage-3, man-focused cancer.

The song More Like Jesus was featured on the 2018 Passion album Whole Heart and was written by Passion City Church pastor Kristian Stanfill, along with Hillsong mainstays Brooke and Scott Ligertwood and fellow Passion leader Brett Younker. Before we start, it should be noted that, logically, there are two ways worshipers seek to be more like Jesus. One is to conform ourselves to Christ. The other is to attempt to conform Christ to us. Sadly, the latter makes an appearance in this song.

Note: For a full explanation of the rubric and a primer on our scoring methodology, click here.

The banner image from the song’s listing at passionmusic.com

Doctrinal Fidelity and Clarity: The song opens with the line, “You came to the world you created, trading your crown for a cross” – an immediate Christological error. Jesus did not lose his crown of glory or any part of his divine kingship as part of the incarnation (John 10:30, Hebrews 2:9). This kind of reduction of the worshipped Christ to primarily man is a typical fixture of modern worship music, as a dragging down of Christ to the level of the worshiper opens the door for a self-focused, self-validated lyrical framework and encourages a more emotional, romantic, experience-seeking worship experience. The same mischaracterization is seen in the phrase, “counting your status as nothing” (an apparent reference to Philippians 2:6-7), which implies a loss of deity status rather than Christ setting aside his heavenly privileges as part of his sovereign purpose in the incarnation.

While much of the song is technically correct in terms of doctrine, nearly every lyric requires additional context and explanation to be identifiably Christian. The lyric “this world is dying to know who You are” is biblically incorrect, as “dying” for something is a phrase implying a desire for that thing, and scripture teaches that apart from conversion, the world does not desire Jesus (Romans 3:11). Additionally, there is a salvific difference between knowing who Jesus is (Romans 1:19-20) and truly knowing Jesus (John 10:27). 15/25.

Doctrinal Specificity: While the lyrics allude to some scriptural truth (Jesus as a servant, can’t live without Jesus), most of the song bears the typical generic emotionality of wide-appealing worship music. The sin of man and salvation are predictably characterized as Jesus putting the icing on the cake of the believer’s life rather than saving it from judgment and destruction. “Your innocent life paid the cost” gets close to the specific gospel message, although what the cost is remains unidentified. “Change me like only you can” and “You’ve shown us the way to your heart” are similarly vague, leaving worshipers the option of seeing these as referring to salvation, sanctification, or some mishmash of the two. 10/20.

Focus: The focus of the song starts on Christ (although not a faithful description of Him), but quickly shifts to a focus on and elevation of the general, emotionally-framed needs and acts of the worshiper (“covering me with your love,” “my heart in your hands”). The song seems to focus on sanctification more than salvation (“make me more like Jesus”), but makes no attempt to identify specific scriptural components of sanctification (repentance, obedience, knowing God more through knowledge) and instead employs emotional generalities (“take everything,” “you’ve shown us the way to Your heart”). 10/20.

Video still from the beginning of the music video. No words yet.

Association: Passion Conferences have been around since 1997, and it’s safe to say the organization is the progenitor of the modern praise and worship conference scene. The movement was started by Louie Giglio of Passion City Church in Atlanta, a church that has played host to a who’s who parade of false teachers including Francis Chan, Christine Caine, Carl Lentz, and Judah Smith. Giglio’s preaching downplays the eternal consequences of sin and repentance and has long been soft on the biblical teaching on homosexuality and gender. He has partnered with nearly every big name in ecumenical big-market “Christianity,” including Brian Houston, Andy Stanley (his childhood friend), and Steven Furtick (who similarly teaches Giglio’s little gods heresy). The 2022 Passion Conference featured Gateway Church prosperity praise leaders Cody Carnes and Kari Jobe, Christine Caine, Levi Lusko, and wokester David Platt.

Most worshipers likely won’t know about these associations even as the bad doctrine floating around such a hive of scum and villainy seems to have made its way into the song’s doctrine. 10/20.

Video still from the beginning of the music video. Still no words have been spoken.

Musical Value: The slow 6/8 is a good choice for an acoustic guitar-led ballad. The instrumentation and arrangement are formulaic but easy to sing even as the first verse and chorus are an octave down from the rest of the song in order to build energy. These guys are great songwriters in the modern praise-and-worship genre. 15/15.

Total Score: 60/100. The song barely makes it into the PG, Pastoral Guidance Suggested category, and narrowly avoids automatic disqualification in the doctrinal and associational areas. The associational danger is not quite at the same level as Elevation tunes (although churches would be justified in avoiding it on this basis), yet the doctrinal vagueness necessitates strong surrounding context in the worship service (teaching, announcing) to provide clarity. In other words, the song cannot stand on its own. There are better choices out there, of course.

Categories
Evangelical Stuff SBC Scandal

Willie McLaurin Resigns as Interim President of SBC EC Amidst Resume Scandal

Willie McLaurin, the interim president and CEO of the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee (SBC EC), has voluntarily stepped down from his post. The resignation came after revelations of falsified credentials on his resume, which he had admitted to SBC EC leaders.

McLaurin, who had claimed on his resume that he held degrees from North Carolina Central University, Duke University Divinity School, and Hood Theological Seminary confessed on Thursday that this was untrue. This discovery followed weeks of investigations initiated by search committee members.

According to a statement shared by the Baptist Press, Phillip Robertson, SBC EC Chairman, and Neal Hughes, EC Presidential Search Committee Chairman, verified that McLaurin did not graduate from their schools.

In addition to resigning from his interim position, McLaurin is also no longer a candidate for the position of SBC EC president. In a resignation letter, McLaurin apologized for his actions, asking SBC members for forgiveness.

“To the Southern Baptists who have placed their confidence in me and have encouraged me to pursue the role of President & CEO of the SBC Executive Committee, including pastors, state partners, entity servants, colleagues, and SBC African American friends, I offer my deepest apologies,” wrote McLaurin.

Jonathan Howe, vice president of communications for the SBC EC, expressed his sorrow and asked the community for their prayers, stating, “Today has been an incredibly hard day for our Southern Baptist family.”

Categories
Church In-person Church News Righteous Defiance

The Essential Church: A Review

The Essential Church by Grace Productions chronicles the fight of three churches to maintain Christ’s authority over Christian worship in the face of government persecution as told through the story of Grace Community Church (GCC)’s John MacArthur, Fairview Baptist Church (Calgary) pastor Tim Stephens, and GraceLife Church (Edmonton) pastor James Coates. The film makes a direct and strong case for both the authoritative headship of Christ over Christian worship, and the fact that God both chastens and protects Christians (and local churches) whom he loves.

Featuring narration by Westminster Presbyterian Theological Seminary President Ian Hamilton and including interviews by multiple GCC elders, the film draws an important connection between historical Christian protests with the refusal of a minority of present-day churches to submit their worship practices to the authority of the state.

At Protestia, we are encouraging everyone to go see this movie in the theater if possible. It was certainly a blessing to hear fellow moviegoers cheer God’s victory in the face of overwhelming odds. We likewise encourage you to take your lost friends, as the film provides historical, scriptural, and scientific evidence demonstrating the tyranny of local governments and the clear Gospel message that is the core validation for all truth. It is no secret that we have been vocally and steadfastly supportive of churches that asserted the lordship of Christ over the church in opposition to government restrictions, whether or not the restrictions targeted churches specifically or tyrannized citizens more broadly. We have written, podcasted, and contended on social media for the exact position now heralded by The Essential Church since well before 2020 (here is an example from April 2020, and JD Hall back in 2015), and we are thankful to God to see steadfast brothers and sisters at these churches who were willing to stand and fight for truth when so many others faltered. Our brothers and sisters at GCC, GraceLife, and Fairview are truly God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works (Ephesians 2:10), and living proof that God upholds, corrects, and disciplines those who are his (Hebrews 12:6). It is no exaggeration to say that Protestia/Pulpit&Pen walk the theological path that ministries like GCC/Grace to You and pastors like John MacArthur have cut before us, and even when we criticize them we are walking in their footsteps of obedience to Christ.

What follows is a discussion of the theology behind the film, additional context we believe to be important, and fact-checking we have found useful. As both Tim Stephens and James Coates are graduates of The Master’s Seminary (GCC’s partner school for pastoral training), we will assume the three churches are doctrinally aligned. Even though much of the outcome of this saga is known, we will try not to spoil the best parts and we strongly encourage our readers to see this film.

The Three Questions

As churches in early 2020 scrambled to both understand the truth of COVID-19 and apply it to the context of gathered worship, the internal debate among professing Christians and external debate in the secular political context centered around three pivotal questions:

  1. What is the reality of the risk of COVID-19? In other words, is COVID-19 a providential hindrance akin to a hurricane about to level our churches?
  2. What authority – if any – does the civil government have over the gathering and worship practices of the church? This question and debate centered around the interpretation and application of Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17.
  3. Are Christians required by God to attend church? What is the nature of the obligation of believers to physically gather together for worship?

The film focuses primarily on the issue of jurisdictional authority over the church. This is a welcome focus, as GCC’s pre-COVID understanding and application of Romans 13 was basically “Since God institutes all authority (Romans 13:1), Christians are required to unquestioningly obey anyone in a government position.” This shallow and unworkable understanding had yet to present a problem for present-day Americans and Canadians, as governments were hands-off in terms of religious practice and the separation of church and state rightly kept the magistrate in its place. Yet in March 2020, churches were forced to confront a potentially historic health calamity while applying whatever theology they had regarding the jurisdictional relationship between church and state. Most failed initially. Many have never corrected. Fortunately and by the grace of God, the three churches chronicled answered the three questions correctly.

The Risk

The wild-eyed predictions of doom and gloom coming from politicians and their fellow institutionalists painted a picture of unavoidable COVID calamity, with millions quickly dead and the lesser of two evils (“stop the spread”) necessitating everyone staying apart for (at the time) two weeks. The film discusses this confusion in explaining the churches’ initial decision to cease gathering – MacArthur compares the decision to close to what they would have done if a hurricane was heading for the church. Apocalyptic estimates of death were sourced largely from the fraudulently unscientific Imperial College Model, and its authors’ recommended “nonpharmaceutical interventions” like distancing, masks (which Anthony Fauci famously discouraged in March only to tell people in May to wear them as a symbol and “sign of respect”), and of course, lockdowns to prevent gathering, which the world was assured would “slow the spread” and prevent an overrun of hospital capacity with COVID patients (the film notes that several doctors on the GCC board were supportive of the “flatten the curve” strategy).

It is worth noting (especially for those who compared the lockdowns to biblical examples of quarantine) that these nonpharmaceutical interventions were not intended for the sick, but the well, particularly the undetectables known as “asymptomatic carriers.”

It took little time for careful observers to notice that the risk was nowhere near what officials were making it out to be. The traditional epidemiological framework of infections (a person carrying a detectable level of a pathogen), cases (a person needing medical treatment due to sickness from a pathogen), hospitalizations (a person admitted to hospital care to treat sickness from a pathogen) and deaths (a person dying primarily due to sickness from a pathogen) had been replaced with a one-label-fits-all novel reporting system that reported every infection and case as the same thing (non-sick people who test positive for the virus are reported as the same as those who get seriously sick and require medical care), labeled anyone who happened to have been admitted to a hospital and was positive as a “COVID hospitalization,” and called anyone who died while testing positive for the presence of the virus (within 30 days) a “COVID death.”

Children were demonstrably at minuscule risk from COVID. The elderly were at the highest risk. The relative risk from COVID infection (unsurprisingly) tracked almost exactly with a person’s overall risk from any other respiratory illness. Those who had recovered from infection and sickness demonstrated broad-spectrum immunity. While these factors and the overblown nature of COVID had become known to MacArthur in April, he held fast to the “easy call” of obeying the government’s church shutdown order unless faced with “persecution of the church,” which he curiously said would violate the fact that “God says we must meet.”

The Fourth Commandment

The film largely ignores the question of whether Christians are commanded to gather for worship on the Lord’s Day, choosing instead to describe the benefits and essential obedience to God fulfilled by gathered worship, as well as the spiritual damage done to believers through the prohibitions on gathering. MacArthur does describe the “true church” as “the gathering of people who belong to God by faith in Jesus Christ. We meet to worship God, to give him honor, to give him glory, to praise him. We speak in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs. We sing. We read the scripture. We preach and proclaim the scripture.”

Those of us who do not believe the Lord’s Day to be the “Christian Sabbath” (with varying degrees of requirements pulled from Mosaic Law) still believe that the instructions given to the gathered church are specific and required outworkings of loving God and loving our neighbor, and we have committed before God and one another to show up on Sunday together to fulfill these instructions. This places us in the position of those who are “fully convinced in our minds” that Sunday is a “day above another” and that we “observe the day for the Lord” (Romans 14:4-6). Christians like those who lead GCC, GraceLife, and Fairview Baptist have certainly committed before God to gather for worship on Sunday. Not doing so is a sin.

In practice and (apparently) now in conviction, GCC seems to have taken the position that, while Christians are not mandated to gather due to a church-age continuation of the Sabbath commandment, regular worship gathering is the primary vehicle by which believers follow all of the elements of worship required of them, and is, therefore, a requirement for believers.

Romans 13

Perhaps the most remarkable portion of the film – especially for readers of Protestia and other similarly-observant discernment websites – was the description of the GCC’s change in position on the issue of submission to the governing authorities. Church elder Mike Riccardi describes the challenge presented to him (and later to the elder board) by an unnamed friend, beginning with a text message on the screen stating, “There’s more to Romans 13 than you think.”

Not long ago, John MacArthur and GCC promoted an unworkable, Erastian (to quote Riccardi’s realization from the film) theology of government submission that found them arguing against the American Revolution (along with misquoting 1 Peter 2:14 as “reward” rather than “praise”), and that Christians must “surrender to every secular authority that is placed over us” (this quote is from the now-deleted article referenced in the Capstone Report post). Yet the events of March-May 2020 – particularly when GCC went from closing down explicitly in March because a governing authority said so to opening up in May because the government told them they could, to closing right back down when yet another governing authority weighted in – all within the span of a week.

Yet God not only protects those who are his, he corrects those who are his. Not only that, he provides fellow believers to aid in the corrective process, and by June it was church members – not the elders – who insisted on “stir[ring] up one another to love and good works” (Heb. 10:24), “not neglecting to meet together” (Heb. 10:25), and they started showing up to church despite the continued closure. This display of obedience took place even as some in church leadership had gone so far as to offer novel interpretations that “forsake the gathering” in Hebrews 10:25 referred to apostatizing and not avoiding gathering for regular church worship. As church elder Chris Hamilton notes about the church membership in the film, “They led us to reopening the church.”

Sadly, as this process played out and GCC was being forced by tyrannical government officials to confront the reality that Romans 13 requires application (Who/what is a rightful governing authority? Where are the jurisdictional boundaries between different authorities?), John MacArthur’s position and GCC’s closure were being weaponized against churches and pastors that had not ceased to gather. By the end of July, MacArthur had rightfully concluded that the church had a duty to remain open.

The Threat to Churches Continues

At the risk of spoiling the end of the movie (even though the results of the case are known), GCC elders describe their insistence that the case go to trial (with the requisite ability to depose and/or subpoena witnesses), resulting in the authorities immediately moving to settle the case out of court. True to their oft-stated desire to practice biblical submission to governing authorities, GCC let Los Angeles off the hook and settled the case prior to trial, which amounted to the county paying $800,000 for the church’s legal fees (half from the Los Angeles Public Health Dept. and half from the state of California), ceasing retaliatory actions (like canceling the long-standing lease for the parking lot), and agreeing to never again enforce “coronavirus pandemic” regulations against the church.

It appears that this victory, however, is restricted to Grace Community Church. It is undeniable (and the film alludes to this) that Los Angeles County and the state of California paid the church and granted them immunity from future enforcement in order to avoid a trial exposing their anti-religious bigotry and corruption. Sadly, pushing for a trial might have had the effect of winning protection for many or perhaps all churches in California from future intrusive persecution. Instead, the result of this very real victory seems to be protective only for GCC. Of course, GCC does not have an obligation to other churches in this regard, and we sincerely hope that the order that accompanied the settlement can be used if necessary to protect churches in the future.

Again, even as we’re disappointed the film skipped over the primary evidence of GCC elders’ need for repentance on Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17, we are glad to see the film discuss the fact that they did repent. The real blessing of the account is not that the churches and pastors involved persevered against the state this time (as praiseworthy as that is), it is that God never fails to sustain and continue the sanctification of his children. God used GCC, GraceLife, and Fairview Baptist because of their faith and despite the continued need for growth in understanding. We all should be so blessed.

Find tickets for The Essential Church here.

Categories
Breaking News SBC

Breaking! Bart Barber Wins Reelection, Will Remain SBC President

Current SBC president and Texas pastor Bart Barber easily survived a challenge from Conservative Baptist Network-endorsed pastor Mike Stone, receiving nearly 69% of the vote, and will continue as president of the Southern Baptist Convention for another year.

Besieged by criticism over his position on abortion and the circus-like circumstances surrounding the SBC’s Abuse Reform Implementation Task Force (ARITF), Barber faced an unusual challenge just a year into his tenure (the SBC tradition is for a president to serve two years), made even clearer as 2022’s original establishment candidate Willy Rice throwing his support behind and nominating Mike Stone.

The vote wasn’t particularly close, with messengers voting 7531 for Barber, 3458 for Stone.

This is a developing story

Categories
Evangelical Stuff News Op-Ed

We Will Forgive You When You Go Away

Imagine for a moment the hubris it takes to piously lecture the faithful on forgiveness and grace mere months after tarring us as selfish, un-Christlike grandma killers. To demand under the color of Christian obedience the very grace, humility, and forgiveness denied others as you cozy up to secular power requires a special form of narcissism.

Enter Christianity Today.

The same publication whose editors and writers heralded their moral superiority on all things COVID – including decrying the now-proven lab leak theory, platforming mad scientist Francis Collins, and recommending “resources” that are to this day pushing the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” tripe – is now demanding Christian forgiveness include zero accountability for those who provided “Jesus cover” for the freedom-crushing COVID-era spiritual abuse perpetrated on the Christian church.

In the article by fund Ukraine forever ERLC neocon Paul D. Miller, he claims “we got things wrong” before doubling down on his rebuke of believers who employed data, common sense, and (most importantly) scripture and therefore had it right the whole time.

Apparently copying and pasting from 2021, Miller writes:

…it was right to treat COVID-19 as a serious emergency and to act with an abundance of caution. Flippancy about masks and social distancing, especially early on when we did not know much, was unwise. Treating the virus as unimportant or unthreatening was grossly insensitive to older and immunocompromised people who were at extreme risk.

Miller apparently can’t figure out that our “flippancy” and “gross insensitivity” in deciding for ourselves and our families the virus’ importance and threat did not infringe on anyone. In truth, it was bureaucratic tyrants like Anthony Fauci and COVID Apostles to the Evangelicals Russell Moore, Francis Collins, and Ed Stetzer who wielded gospel-branded, state-approved judgment against believers who remained understandably suspicious of a government that had demanded we shutter churches.

In August 2021, Miller himself lectured that he “had no patience” with freedom-demanding Americans who disagreed with forced vaccination (a “commonsense health measure” to Miller), although made sure to let readers know that (in true benevolent despot fashion) he might allow “very rare” religious exceptions to forcibly injecting genetic material into the bodies of his fellow citizens.

Miller’s article ignores entirely the generational damage done to the development of children on the basis of a virus that presented less risk to them as a demographic than vehicle accidents, drowning, and being murdered. It ignores his and others’ complicity in the tyrannical arrests of their fellow citizens, ruining of livelihoods, churches that barred worshipers who refused to be medical test subjects, and his own denomination forcing its missionary families to inject themselves. Most offensively, Miller papers over spiritual abuse – the myriad of false accusations of sin made against faithful believers who stood up to this tyranny and refused to go against their (now undeniably proven true) consciences before God.

Yes, forgiveness and grace should be given. But not in light of the refusal of Miller and those who similarly leveraged Christ in their quest for church closure, forced vaccination, and generational societal abuse to repent. The day we see Paul Miller and friends apologizing to families for giving “love thy neighbor” cover to a power-drunk government that denied last moments with loved ones, we can seriously discuss “forgiving each other our pandemic sins.” So far, perpetrators like Miller have yet to truly confess their sins, much less repent of them, which considering the gravity of their error must involve humble self-deplatforming.

Categories
Evangelical Stuff News Op-Ed

The Troubling Legacy of Tim Keller

It is not unloving nor hypocritical to say that we are praying for comfort for Tim Keller’s family and church, and at the same time striving for clarity and open discussion regarding his teaching, which will endure in his absence. Those who reflexively claim it is unloving or inappropriate to criticize him in the wake of his passing are content to let doctrinal clarity be subjugated to personality and “respectability.” We are not.

It should first be noted, especially since he has received the praise of so many should-be hated by the world believers, that Keller was not by any definition hated by the world (John 15:18). Rather, the world embraced him as one of their own. Nearly every “respectable” publication – from The New York Times to Christianity Today – wrote fawning pieces on Keller’s passing, holding him up as the modern example of how to bridge the gap between Christianity and a world that, according to scripture, wants no part of the true Christ (John 15:18-19). Keller’s bridge was built smack dab between the church and the depraved culture, undergirded by a synthetic gate of orthodox terminology and faux-intellectual (often nonsensical) doublespeak wide enough to drive a New York City garbage truck through.

Keller’s pragmatic winsomeness and pseudo-erudite nuance garnered a great deal of influence with spiritually immature seminary students (1 Cor. 3:1-2) and Calvinist-leaning pragmatists who were not wise enough to see through Keller’s rhetorical deconstruction of the methods of revelation – much less the damage he was doing to the revelation itself in pursuit of his social justice sympathies. Statements like, “One of the signs that you may not grasp the unique, radical nature of the gospel is that you are certain that you do” would ordinarily cause any true disciple of Jesus to immediately recall 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, followed by examining what Keller meant by unique and radical. Instead, mind-scrambling, Yogi Berra-worthy statements like this were met with the same awe and wonder that never questioned why this faithful minister of God never seemed to share His enemies.

Over the course of Keller’s career, he perfected a unique brand of winsome compromise, which resulted in magically retaining his orthodox street cred even as he promoted Darwinian Evolution along with BioLogos, chronicled the neo-Marxist origins of his theology in his books (Gustavo Gutiérrez and Reinhold Niebuhr were two of Keller’s favorites), and regularly peddled a Christianized version of the kind of mind-mushing rhetorical confusion that would have make Saul Alinsky blush. His 5000+ attendee congregation (in truth buoyed by spiritually disaffected post-9/11 spiritual seekers) was all the evidence market-minded pastoral imitators needed to validate Keller’s brand of culturally relevant wisespeak. Note: See Keller’s 2012 book Every Good Endeavor for examples of him praising Alinsky-inspired churches implementing socialist economics as worthy examples to follow.

In a recent example, Keller and Gospel Coalition co-founder Don Carson released a video entitled, “What Did Paul Mean by ‘I Do Not Permit a Woman to Teach?’ where Keller takes two seemingly contradictory positions before synthesizing them into a weak, Beth Moore-worthy postmodernism: Paul was clearly forbidding something, but Keller is open to those who disagree with what that something is.

Keller referred to the disciples of Karl Marx as those who “cared about people and upward mobility.” He left the door open for putting an end to abortion not by outlawing it as murder, but by decreasing it through economic redistribution. He did not believe that “thou shall not steal” implied a right to private property. He infamously called for more same-sex “intimacy” in churches in the context of so-called “Same-sex attraction (SSA) Christianity.”

Keller promoted a “death by a thousand cuts” antinomianism, seen in silly claims like, “You can run from God either by breaking his rules or by keeping them” (see John 14:15) and mind-numbingly stupid ones like, “To truly become Christians we must also repent of the reasons we ever did anything right.” Keller flexed his Marxist bona fides by classifying the gospel as a different message depending on whether one is rich or poor. In a likely attempt to lend gospel weight to his push for social justice, he argued that God’s holiness and love depended on Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross (In other words, apart from the cross, God would be neither loving nor holy) – a clear and unequivocal heretical teaching that subjugates God’s holiness to His will. Perhaps most famously, Keller did not rule out a “back door” for those outside of Christ to receive salvation on the basis that because he hasn’t been told such a back door exists, he can’t say for sure it doesn’t exist. Of course, Jesus said otherwise (John 14:6).

Many pastors and public theologians have praised Keller following his death, practicing a particularly seductive version of anti-discernment: He’s dead now, so there’s no call to examine his teaching critically. Or worse, he was a hero of mine coming up in ministry, and prohibitions against unequal weights and measures doesn’t apply when it’s someone I care about.

Yet Keller the guru of winsome Cultural Marxism is not gone. Rather, his death will insulate his false ideas from criticism, ironically through application of the same Christo-Marxist techniques he pioneered at the hive of scum and villainy known as The Gospel Coalition. With his sermons, books, and interviews continuing to teach in his absence, Bible-believing Christians have no leeway nor call to give his bad theology and worldly epistemology a pass.

May God have mercy on his soul.

Note: for a thorough list of Kellerisms, see this tweet thread.

Also, see this video for a historical discussion of how Tim Keller’s synthesis of new left thinking and evangelicalism came to be:

Categories
podcast Protestia Tonight Videos

Podcast: Loser Theology?

On this episode of Protestia Tonight for May 16th, 2023, we talk about why premillennialism is not “loser theology” despite what is being claimed by social media theologians. In the PT VIP portion, we talk about how to witness to those who believe they are saved but are not.

Categories
podcast Protestia Tonight Videos

Protestia Tonight: Discern In Context

On this episode of Protestia Tonight for May 9th, 2023, we discuss what John MacArthur meant by claiming he wouldn’t speak alongside women speakers. In the PT VIP segment, we talk about some new changes coming to Protestia and answer a related question about what to do when our pastors are not discerning about their endorsements.

Categories
News Protestia Tonight Videos

Making Everyone Mad At Us

We’re talking about the Christian Nationalism debate live, and we’re going to add some context you need to hear, lovable pew-sitter.

Categories
News Op-Ed

The Case For Christian Citizenship

Christian: An term indicating a person or entity’s conformity in word and deed to the tenets of Christianity as defined by the Bible.

Nationalism: Loyalty, commitment, and love for one’s neighbors as defined by common geography, culture, and legal status.

Christian Nationalism: The practice of nationalism as properly oriented by Christian beliefs and practices.

There, I’ve added my definition to the laundry list. It’s short and simple, and (like other broad ideas) relies on proper, functional definitions of the embedded terms Christian, nationalism, neighbor, and love.

Setting aside for the moment the strategic value of either embracing or abandoning “Christian Nationalism” as an identifier, the apparent disagreements over its definitional and theological presuppositions have made Christian Nationalism quite the wedge issue. While I hope to find common ground for both sides of the debate, it is just as likely I’ll make both sides mad at me. Let’s get started…

Note: This is a long read. If you’d prefer to skip to my summary points, feel free to scroll all the way down.

The Latest Kerfuffle

There appears to be a fracturing in Reformed Christianity’s tenuous anti-woke alliance. Recently, social media posts from Josh Buice and Scott Aniol of G3 Ministries (representing a conservative and decidedly Baptistic coalition) have launched warning shots across the bow of the SS Christian Nationalist (and its lovable rogue’s gallery of culture warriors), reminding all ships navigating the choppy waters of doctrinal conservatism that the Baptists refuse to fly the Christian Prince flag. And of course, the deinstitutionalized but doctrinally-interested pew-sitters that read Protestia wonder what to make of the tempest that, while often raging in the Ph.D. stratosphere, touches down long enough to get us all yelling at each other, boarding up our digital windows, and reshuffling our personal “naughty or nice” lists of online Christian influencers.

Recently this tempest hit Category 5 following a tweet by The Case For Christian Nationalism author and political philosopher Stephen Wolfe. Wolfe stated (with requisite Rockwell “Freedom of Speech” image) that “White evangelicals are the lone bulwark against moral insanity in America,” causing conservative voices to respond – some with denouncement, others with clarification or defense, and almost all with varying degrees of vacillation.

Of core concern to this debate is how Christians should best address the apparent moral freefall of Western civilization, as every corner of the internet (that “place” many of us now see as “reality”) is rife with increasingly offensive and outlandish displays of godless behavior. In this new illusory society, we are given a front-row seat to endless, mindless violence, we see horribly lonely “influencers” trading what is left of reality for another hit of attention, and we watch our epistemological common ground turning into digital quicksand. All the while, our subconsciouses suspect a dystopian truth our minds can’t bring themselves to admit: none of this is real and we are all alone.

Is there more violent crime in the country than in years past? Not really, but it doesn’t matter because there is more apparent violence. Is there more sexual deviancy? We suspect yes, but the internet-driven vicious cycle of attention that turns real-world whores into attention whores (and visa versa) makes it hard to tell if Drag Queen Story Hour™ may perhaps simply be the culturally deviant tail wagging the woke dog.

Ours is a society now entirely unhitched from the responsible, moral, and Imago Dei-based principled individualism of the recent past, having replaced it with a morally disconnected, psychologized, and profoundly self-worshiping counterfeit. What began with the industrial age’s disconnection of people from the traditional bounds of physical existence (through transportation and common media) has now become the information age’s disconnection of self from the unified human nature of body, mind, and spirit. Many of us now live full-time as digital residents – our physical bodies existing in the old world with our self residing in the digital realm. This dangerous place reinforces the first and most pernicious lie ever told – that we are like God. And as gods of our digital kingdoms, we exercise dictatorial authority. We enlist big tech companies to function as our digital Praetorian Guard, ensuring we see only what we want. Anything we don’t care for ceases to exist.

The Theological Battleground

In the same fashion, many Christians have cut themselves loose from the bounds of the local church, preferring instead a digital version where they act as their own personal ecclesiastical authority. Traditional brick-and-mortar churches, many of which have now become mere retailers of spiritual products, stand laughably impotent in the face of the moral anarchy that has ridden into their communities on the back of godless self-empowerment and a cowardly pietism that regulates spiritual matters to a place isolated from the physical and public parts of a person’s existence. Pastors grandstand with appeals to the “universal church,” as if this reality can be exercised in any practical sense, giving themselves a “let go and let God” excuse for self-serving neutrality on hot-button cultural issues.

In this new digitized life, the historical connection of knowledge between laity, clergy, and the academy has been replaced with a free-for-all. Academics scramble to maintain their ivory tower bona fides, PR-focused pastors conduct their ministries beneath the shadow of their online personas, and pew-sitters relish their equal access to the conversation even as many demonstrate how ill-equipped they are to participate. Institutional barriers have been obliterated, for better and worse. “Everyone’s a Theologian,” said R.C. Sproul, but now everyone is a public theologian in a conversation where the rules of discourse, credibility, and influence are up for grabs. Institutionalists calculate how much compromise is necessary to remain relevant, vision-casting marketers conduct focus groups to figure out the next method for drawing new crowds (while keeping the current one sufficiently sedated), and invested pew-sitters wonder why public Christianity seemingly has no answer to the chaos.

It is within this chaos that the battle for the soul of biblically serious, orthodox Christianity is being waged. While there are nearly as many unique doctrinal and practical outworkings of the Christian faith as there are Christians, this battle is focused on the proper response of believers to the rapid advancement of godless ideologies, behavior, and social decay in a country not long ago uncontroversially called a Christian nation.

The tribal borders of the debate are not perfectly defined and there is an understandable crossover among various camps, yet there appear to be two distinct cohorts forming. Neutrality is disappearing as pressure increases on everyone to take a side or risk having a side assigned to them.

Christian Nationalism

On one side is a newly-emerging strain of conservative thought that has embraced the label Christian Nationalism, formed by a relatively young, loose coalition of Presbyterians, Reformed Baptists, and evangelical culture warriors. This coalition focuses on reasserting the Christian call to unashamedly practice public faith. These brothers and sisters are quite willing to battle for “Christian” institutions, even as they generally acknowledge that “Christian” describes conformity to Christian practice rather than all participants being professing, regenerate Christians. Consisting largely of postmillennial Calvinists, the coalition sees the adoption of classical liberalism in society and church as opening the door to all manner of godless depravity, and that nations (America, in our case) should seek to promote Christian virtue and values in public life. They reject the idea that a “neutral” (secular) civil government can exist.

Liberty

On the other side of the debate are those who might be termed individualists, or those who believe in a strong distinction between churches and civil governing authorities, and for whom individual liberty practiced in civil life is a non-negotiable, essential component of a just society. This coalition is comprised of non-postmillennialists, dispensationalists, classical liberals, civil libertarians, and both traditional and Calvinistic Baptists, who are concerned that a deemphasis on individual liberty in the exercise of civil government will result in authoritarianism. They tend to believe that not only does the “Christianization” of worldly institutions have no biblical warrant (and likely no practical possibility), the term “Christian Nationalism” is definitionally unclear, has been effectively marginalized by progressive “Christians,” and has been strategically spun by the godless culture to be analogous to “white nationalism.”

Definitions

The disagreements over underlying theology are real, yet the grounds for the visible divide are likely far more superficial than they seem. Both sides routinely mock one another, and while mockery is obviously not a problem to Protestia in principle, the barbs traded by these camps (sometimes with disfellowshipping absolution) require context to be understood as more than just meme-worthy theological mud-slinging.

True common ground begins with common definitions. And common definitions should be functional not only among the learned and initiated but among casual observers in and out of the church. The current battle is as much about definitions as anything, and whether or not the term Christian Nationalism ends up being strategically useful, it must be grounded by its logical and functional definition.

“Christian”

Arguments for the impossibility of a Christian nation often begin with the disqualifying technicality, “A Christian is a person saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, regenerated by the Holy Spirit! Therefore a nation can’t be Christian unless every person is a true believer!”

Yes, we know an institution cannot be regenerated. Yet somehow the term Christian has been utilized to describe businesses, schools, households, and even churches almost as long as the word had been around. Not only can no institution be called “Christian” under the standard of 100% regeneration, no actual Christian bears the label with falsifiable certainty. The regeneration standard eliminates the use of “Christian” for anything other than as a “more likely than not” spiritual abstract.

Instead, the Christian identifier can and should be used as it has been throughout history – to describe who or what bears specifically Christian characteristics as distinct from non-Christian. For instance, a church should be labeled “Christian” when it proclaims, acts, and ministers in accordance with true Christian doctrine. When compared with non-Christian religious institutions, a Christian church is distinct – based on defined attributes. A school or business is called “Christian” if it operates according to principles that are morally and ethically Christian – not because every person involved has proven themselves to be an actual Christian. This is no less true when applied to a nation, and a nation is called “Christian” when its laws, jurisprudence, and culture bear a distinctly Christian signature.

“Nationalism”

Despite the word being used as a pejorative in some contexts (“White nationalism,” for example), the word nationalism simply denotes a love for, loyalty to, and commitment to the good of one’s nation as distinct from other nations. Properly oriented nationalism – love of nation – requires two primary components: identification of one’s nation, and identification of what is good. Nations as distinct peoples, cultures, and social norms are foundational to human civilization, and love for one’s nation is a direct outpouring of the second great commandment, to love our neighbors as ourselves. Rather than an emotional expression, this love is practical, and begins with those closest to us – family, church, community, and nation. While we may send missionaries to far-off nations to preach the Gospel, proper practice of ordinary, neighborly love necessitates nationalism.

This love is defined by God’s Word – both by his law and by the equal value of all men created in his image (Matthew 22:39). After all, true love of one’s nation must first be true love.

The command that all Christians should love their neighbors as themselves forms the basis for civil government that is identifiably Christian – informed by both the equality of mankind before God and the distinct sphere of jurisdiction granted to civil authorities versus churches, families, and individuals. As God’s justice is applied to the individual soul, so civil justice is only proper when applied likewise. This fundamental truth which finds expression in individual rights stands opposed to Marxism, critical theory, and any other godless belief structure that devalues mankind by collectivizing justice.

Biblical Common Ground

As the descriptor “Christian” is limited to what can be observed, nationalism is the logical result of loving our neighbors, and love is proper only when conformed to the Word of God, we return ourselves to the basic question Francis Schaeffer rightly asked nearly 50 years ago: How Should We Then Live?

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus assigned numerical generalities to the wide and narrow gate (Matt. 7:13-14). As He taught that many will enter the wide gate and be destroyed while few will take the hard path through the narrow gate that leads to life, we can safely assume that Christians will belong to nations where most people are not truly regenerated. This may be seen in their overt rejection of Christ in word and deed, or in the many who claim Christ but do not truly have Him (Matt. 7:21), but it is clear that the majority of people we call countrymen are not believers. Righteous law – made for the ungodly and sinful rather than the righteous (1 Tim. 1:8-10) – can and should restrain (and benefit) believers and unbelievers alike.

Scripture defines a distinct jurisdiction and role for governing authorities (Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:13-14), the instructions to submit to governing authorities are applied to individuals, and it is the individual that will be held responsible for compliance. This compliance is in the area of civil conduct and citizenry, not in matters scripture assigns to other jurisdictions such as the church (Heb. 13:17, Eph. 5:21), home (1 Peter 3:1-6, Eph. 5:22-24), workplace (Eph. 6:5-8), and of course our primary submission to God Himself (James 4:7, Acts 5:29).

Civil government should treat the regenerated Christian, the unregenerated “Christian,” the Muslim, Jew, or atheist the same so long as they are doing right and not wrong in their civic participation. Yet the government, which is to be a judicial mediator of individual interests outside of the church, has an obligation to orient its moral standards to those that align with the law of God as summarized by the “love of neighbor” standard. The role of a civil magistrate in a “Christian” nation is to “bear the sword” against interpersonal sins of a material (rather than spiritual) nature – murder (or the threat thereof), stealing, adultery, false witness, and the covetousness that leads to all of them.

The Reformers rightly understood that the Bible prescribes no mediator between the believer and God (1 Tim. 2:5). Behavior toward others is subject to our primary submission to God Himself, and we have a Christian duty to control ourselves as our first governing responsibility (Gal. 5:23). This necessitates both individual liberty and individual responsibility, the latter is what Western civilization has abandoned in large part. Christians have a duty to take responsibility for themselves, in order that we might use our liberty to serve God. Our liberty serves God when we use it to promote (with word and deed) the good of our family, church, community, and nation as defined by his Word.

Self-described Christian Nationalists and those who supposedly oppose them are called to do the same thing. We don’t make the same mistake the Israelites made (1 Samuel 8:5), asking for a “Christian prince” to blur the lines between fallen, worldly civilization and our holy nation (1 Peter 2:9), especially in a country where our forefathers wisely placed the lower authority of civil government in our hands. We don’t seek to erase the jurisdictional lines God defined. Nor do we retreat to a position where “cultural Christianity” cannot bring the general equity benefits of God’s law and Christian heritage to public institutions. We don’t seek to hide God’s truth or Christian identity under a bushel under the excuse that we are now merely sojourners. Rather, we unapologetically serve as Christian soldiers, who out of world and self-denying obedience take every opportunity to promote God’s truth. As parents, churchmen, self-governing citizens, and those who have been given the gift of free expression, we shout from the rooftops the Gospel and the full counsel of God’s truth, govern where we’re given the opportunity, live our lives in accordance with our faith, and prepare to suffer for the cause of Christ. We strive to properly discern reality in light of the information age’s distortion of reality and our personal role in altering it. We trust that God truly is working all things for our good because we are His.

Points of Summary

  • The plain meaning of “Christian Nationalism” denotes belief and practice that is plainly biblical. This doesn’t mean the term is helpful considering how many versions currently exist that bear untenable presuppositions.
  • Christian Nationalism cannot and should not be rejected based on an unfalsifiable and illogical use of the term “Christian.”
  • Scripture defines the jurisdiction, scope, and responsibility of government as distinct from other God-ordained authorities (Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:13-14).
  • Godly justice is applied at the level of the individual (individualism), and civil government should do likewise within its jurisdiction (generally, second-table issues).
  • Civil government cannot and should not be in the business of judging convictions, beliefs, or religious practices that have no direct relationship to second-table laws, but rather should act to righteously restrain and punish sin committed against its citizens (Rom. 13:4).
  • The observable decline of public morality in Western civilization involves the loss of individual moral responsibility to God in the face of material wealth and cultural stagnation, a power-hungry civil magistrate overstepping its biblical mandate to fill the void between individuals and God, and an information age that has further amplified and incentivized the sinful and selfish tendencies of mankind.
  • Christian Nationalism unhitched from the moral strictures of individualism is doomed to – at best – marginalization or irrelevance. At worst, it will return us to an age where our public practice is criminalized because someone in power believes differently.
  • Christian Citizenship combines the proper motivations and morals of Christian Nationalism with the biblically and naturally evident morality of individualism. Both spiritual and civil justice are applied to the individual, who obeys God by properly submitting to all ordained authority and seeking to self-sacrificially promote godliness in word and deed. He is held responsible for his civic behavior by the magistrate. He is held responsible for his spiritual response to God by God alone.

Addendum: What About Drag Queen Story Hour?

Drag Queen Story Hour™ (DQSH) seems like it has become a plumbline standard for the effectiveness of Christian engagement with the surrounding culture. Depraved expression like DQSH has historically been met with laws against public indecency (perfectly acceptable as instituted by self-governors), but in the absence of such laws, DQSH should be met by vocal opposition to the point that parents exposing their children to such wickedness would be widely shamed. This doesn’t seem to happen in large part because information technology has given rise to separate and self-reinforced subcultures of reality that are disconnected from the pressures of social decency. Parents who commit such abuse against their own children can now find fellow monsters online, feign wide acceptance (to themselves and unwitting observers), and effectively isolate themselves from the still overwhelming opposition to what they are doing. Government institutions (assuming they aren’t activists for deviancy themselves) are unable to weigh the relative preferences of a likely overwhelming public opposition versus a vocal and internet-inflated vocal minority and do not stop it. The answer (now in the works in many places across the country) is to not only stand in vocal opposition to such sin, but to use the gift of self-government to pass laws protecting children from such depravity. Contrary to State Fool David French, this Christian response respects both God’s moral demands and individual liberty, as unconsenting children cannot take responsibility for their exposure to such evil and public identification of sin is a Christian mandate (Ephesians 5:11).