Latest 9 Marks Journal focuses on relationship between church and government

Where was the outcry back in 2016 when Trump was running. Everyone was fine overlooking the rapid growth of Christian nationalism back during his campaign, just so they could get someone in the office that they liked.

Where was the outcry back in 2016 when Trump was running. Everyone was fine overlooking the rapid growth of Christian nationalism back during his campaign, just so they could get someone in the office that they liked.

Christianity Today didn't focus on Christian Nationalism until 2020 (Scott McKnight) and especially 2021 (several articles from Paul Miller and 1 from Russell Moore), especially after January 6th. Also, there wasn't a lot of data on Christian Nationalism until Whitehead and Perry's book, "Taking America Back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States" which came out in 2020. But 9Marks is still late to the party.

I would say that the roots go back to Falwell's Moral Majority, and has been growing ever since. The problem is rooted in very bad theology from the pulpit, and unfortunately too many pulpits are espousing this idea.

A good study/paper would be to look at how different interpretations and assumptions about Biblical prophecy affect ideas about Christian nationalism.

I want to point out that the journal’s focus is much broader than Christian Nationalism. (Also, for what it’s worth, I think I recall 9 Marks blog writers taking on that specific topic a couple times long before now).

But I’m really happy to see them doing a deep dive into the broader context for thinking biblically and theologically about how to handle our relationship with government.

Much of the journal issue is about theonomy. I don’t know if they go into post-liberal integralism, but I hope it’s addressed in there somewhere.

I’m also hoping they go into the “sphere sovereignty” idea, Abraham Kuyper, Augustine’s City of God and how these ideas tend to be misapplied sometimes.

So two things are going on (well, dozens, but I’m summarizing)

• The populist, often pandering, cliche-driven Christian Nationalism movement
• More serious ideologies and theologies that promote various kinds of Christian dominance not only in government but using government.

One common denominator: more interest in winning power than in winning the debate.

For those interested in very early roots of theonomy in US politics, check out the “Two Sons of Oil” by Wylie and its subsequent destruction by Presbyterian pastor, farmer, and state legislator William Findley. Both are available online. There is also a good (albeit dry) biography of Findley.

"

• More serious ideologies and theologies that promote various kinds of Christian dominance not only in government but using government."

Let's not forget that abortion activism falls into this and that is pretty widespread. It is the use of government to force a moral code onto the people. Abortion has not been universal in the Christian world. But is a more recent phenomenon along with Ten Commandments in public places, bible classes in school, prayer in school...

The debate is not whether gov't should force people to follow a moral code. All gov't forces people to accept a moral code: Laws against murder, stealing, lying under oath; laws requiring income reporting, paying taxes, traffic laws. All of these have some degree of moral code within them. The debate is to what extent should a secular gov't force people to accept certain moral beliefs. Secular gov't can mandate laws concerning stealing, murder, etc because a majority of people still accept those laws as necessary and good. Debate occurs when a society is divided on the morality of some actions, such as abortion, or whether gov't should be involved in some actions, such as prostitution or marital unfaithfulness. What is significant is that many societies are changing their beliefs about what is moral or immoral (homosexuality, drag, trans, etc). These changing beliefs weaken gov't ability or interest in creating laws concerning those behaviors. Example: Gov't created laws concerning Sabbath observance because a majority of people accepted the morality of Sabbath observance. Those laws do not exist in Western democracies anymore because a majority of people wanted the laws changed.

Even today, however, people still use the moral argument to get their beliefs legislated. Climate activists often refer to their cause as a moral necessity, the morally right action, and that opposing attempts at climate control are immoral. Using gov't to implement your moral/political agenda is not limited to Christians.

Does anyone know if the 9Marks Journal is still available in PDF format? I don't like having articles available only on a webpage.

I don’t disagree with the basic truth there. Legislation is inherently moral.

But a few things should also be clear:

• It’s impossible to make every morally wrong thing illegal (in any meaningful, enforceable sense)
• Trying to illegalize and coerce too much of what the authority sees as morally right is pretty much the definition of oppression
• Historically, the U.S. was built on a political philosophy that highly values freedom

Though the cliche “you can’t legislate morality” is out there, I don’t think anybody in the serious debate about classical liberalism vs. various post-liberalisms is making that claim.

I’m reminded of a passage that has a far more specific point but expresses the spirit of a broader principle.

² shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; (1 Pe 5:2)

It’s clearly better if pastors are “not under compulsion,” but do the work because their heart is in it.

This is true for humans in general with quite a lot of things. There is more beauty, truth, and goodness in not stealing your neighbor’s car because you believe it’s wrong and don’t want to harm him… vs. not stealing it because you’ll go to jail.

But where virtue is lacking, there often has to be law. … but not always. Some wrongs can simply be allowed and tolerated.

In any case, the Christian faith highly values personal belief and so Christians ought to be the most passionate advocates for winning the debate vs. coercing compliance… whenever the freedom for that is achievable.

Edit to add: About abortion

There’s no question that abortion bans are coercive. Pretty much everybody believes some things need to be illegal, or you have nothing like “civilization” at all. (Somebody way back—maybe Hobbes?—argued that without some law/coercion, there is no freedom because you live in fear of, and compiance to, whoever has more power than you at the moment).

So much of the debate has to do with where to draw the lines and how to determine what lines ought to be drawn. I personally don’t see any reason to abandon the political philosophy our country was founded on, though it often results in things like allowing Satanist after-school clubs, drag queen story hours, and other things we wish didn’t happen. But we’re way past the point where people can be free and also be expected to behave Christianly most of the time. So the question is how to sustain a free society that is also, in many ways, post-Christian.

It should be clear that forcing Christian ways on those who have no such beliefs is not, on the whole, the right strategy.

WallyMorris wrote: Does anyone know if the 9Marks Journal is still available in PDF format? I don’t like having articles available only on a webpage.

It doesn’t look like this issue is yet, but I think it might be. Some of the past issues have a sidebar where you can get a PDF link in exchange for your email address. Like the previous issue has at the moment: https://www.9marks.org/journal/the-churchs-ministries/