The Problems with a “Confessional State”

I watched this interview with Doug Wilson yesterday. He has a different perspective than what is described here.

https://youtu.be/e-oE7ox_XAg?si=zcbIMUC90r4ROSZD

It’s almost like these ideas have never been tried before.

One thing I'd have expected Veith to mention is that after the Peace of Augsburg and the Treaty of Westphalia, princes did indeed choose the religion for at least the non-Jewish and non-free church subjects in their principality, and the end result was Lutheranism and Catholicism so watered down that Spener responded with pietism--"pastors" were keeping mistresses and the like.

It strikes me, along those lines, that the character traits of a ruler--often lust for power--are diametrically opposed to the character traits required for a pastor--service and humility--and we forget that at our peril.

>>It strikes me, along those lines, that the character traits of a ruler—often lust for power—are diametrically opposed to the character traits required for a pastor—service and humility—and we forget that at our peril.<<

Agreed. Or maybe I should say: Aha! We’ve fallen victim to one of the classic blunders regarding leadership. The most famous is “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” But a 2nd quote from the same source is only slightly less well known — “Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.”

Even the early history of the Children of Israel shows that they could not handle government under a direct theocracy. Governments today are certainly no better. The problems of government won’t be solved until Jesus Christ himself rules. Until then, I certainly don’t want religion (my faith) under any civil government.

I disagree with Doug Wilson on a number of issues, but I do not consider him my enemy. I am confused that some would rather identify with atheists than to have any connection to him. These realities do not minimize my disagreements with Wilson on a number of important issues, but we need to keep the big picture in mind. We are both on team Jesus.

That does not mean I will promote Doug or recommend his ministry. We are to mark those who cause division and offenses contrary to the doctrine we have learned and avoid them. But I also want to remember 2 Thessalonians 3:15 "And yet do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother."

It seems like the name Doug Wilson and the title Christian Nationalism have become the worst possible associations for some people. I think that is taking valid concerns to an unhealthy extreme.

I have said many times that there are reasons to be concerned about certain elements of Christian Nationalism, but that we should not assume all Christian Nationalist or even most Christian Nationalists hold to those elements. A large part the propaganda against Christian Nationalism comes from those who are against both Christians and nationalism. Jesus was in favor of BOTH. Of course, being a Christian is all about following Christ. Jesus himself was a nationalist. When he came to earth, he came as King of the Jews. He was there for the nation of Israel first and foremost. He made that clear when he addressed the Canaanite woman near Tyre and Sidon in Matthew 15:24, "But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." She persists and simply asks for the crumbs (the leftovers) and he eventually heals her daughter. His point was that the nation of Israel and their people took priority over her because he was their king first. Throughout history it has been normal for a leader of a country to make his country and his people a priority. That is what nationalism means. Jesus modeled that, so I cannot condemn the concept.

I think we need to be very careful in drawing lines between Christ's leadership over Israel during His earthly ministry and the behaviors of a leader in a democratic republic. The real nation was Rome, Israel was not a nation, and no nation of Israel existed. There was a kingdom of Judea where Herod was a leader of a vassal state subservient to Rome. Christ never discussed how to interact with Rome, except to follow the law of the government. He never articulated a narrative for his followers to transform the kingdom of Judea or Rome through legislation that favors His gospel to enact a "christian" Rome or Judea.

In fact, Jesus specifically denied that his first coming was for a kingdom on Earth (at that time):

John 18:36 - “Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.”

When he returns he most certainly will govern in a direct way, but his first coming was not for that purpose.

JD Miller said:

“I disagree with Doug Wilson on a number of issues, but I do not consider him my enemy. I am confused that some would rather identify with atheists than to have any connection to him. These realities do not minimize my disagreements with Wilson on a number of important issues, but we need to keep the big picture in mind. We are both on team Jesus.“

The Christian Nationalism stuff, and particularly the theology behind it is bad enough but do you agree with Federal Vision? This is the danger to me with Wilson. Can you define his view of justification and show where you agree or do not agree? He is fantastic at obfuscation and is unqualified for the ministry. Yet people follow him because they like that he fights liberals or because he eloquent, or funny, etc. I’m not saying any of these are true of you but it concerns me that the only thing most people think of when they think of Wilson is his theonomy.

Josh, I have to admit there is a lot about Doug Wilson I do not know. I do not spend time studying all his positions and I do not listen to him. I am not a Doug Wilson fan. I think I interacted with him a bit here on SI years ago, so I assumed he held to the core fundamentals that we have to agree to in order to be on this site. I was basing my comments on that.

My take on Wilson is that he's theologically orthodox in the Fundamentals, but he's enough of a fan of being a provocateur that he gets himself in trouble--and then has the catastrophic reality of not having someone he has to listen to, too much of a big fish in a small pond. So his mistakes have multiplied over the years.

Thanks JD. I would recommend looking into his positions. It’s not just the theonomy. It is issues related to the gospel itself.

Also, I don’t recall him ever posting on SI but I could be wrong about that.

Nobody’s wrong all the time, but some sources are not worth the time it takes for them to have a good moment. The ratio is low! Or maybe they are right often but also, when wrong, egregiously wrong. In Wilson’s case, he’s important because he has a lot of influence, not just in Moscow ID.

But, as Bert noted, he is fond of making extreme, provocative statements. I’m not here to judge his motives. But isn’t it pretty evident that that sort of thing doesn’t win anyone over? It does stoke a base, so if that’s your goal it makes sense I guess.

I’m aware that Christian leaders who use that communication style point out that Jesus often made extreme, provocative statements, and even the parables were for those with ears to hear, alienating the rest. True, as far as it goes. But one answer to that defense is that Jesus’ goals included having a very short ministry ending in death at the hands of His enemies. It would be understatement to say we are not all called to that.

....about Jesus' provocative statements is that they were all 100% true. Wilson--or those among us--not so much. Everybody needs, therefore, someone who has the right to pull someone aside and say things like "Doug, you might want to walk back that claim that Rachael Denhollander is an ambulance chaser..." (real example)