I don't think it's fair to position Mohler's contentions as trying to "establish" Christianity in any way. Like my Lyceum piece from a while back, it's perfectly fine for Baptists to encourage the state to recognize Christianity or Christian moral principles in a civil sense without enforcing confessional Christianity on anyone. Furthermore, it's pretty consistent with Backus' own theology at least to see a robust defense of religious liberty as essentially predicated upon Christian principles.
Hey Flynn, thanks for joining the conversation. Did I equate Mohler's position with trying to "establish' Christianity here? I've tried to be careful not to use that language. However, I'm very interested to see him elaborate more on how he envisions his doctrine of Christian acknowledgement working out in practice. To my knowledge, that hasn't been presented yet. Also, I don't disagree with your point about Baptists advocating for Christian principles in the public square. In our constitutional order we have as much right as anyone else to urge laws consistent with truth and righteousness as revealed.
I don't think you're directly accusing him of outright establishmentarianism, so I suppose I should qualify my initial comment. However, I'm not convinced that he's guilty of "looking to the government for help" in the hopes of eventually Christianizing America. His main point in that address was to simply note that the sustainability of American democracy was de facto predicated upon the longevity of Christian principles and that it's not improper for the US government to affirm such. For example, Andrew Walker has contended that it's consistent for him as a Baptist to be against establishmentarianism (including the likes of myself and Dr. Mohler) while also find it to be civilly licit to post the Ten Commandments in federal buildings as a recognition of what has historically informed Western jurisprudence and governance in the Anglo-American tradition. In that sense, I don't believe Mohler is going further than arguing that the federal government simply needs to be more intellectually consistent with its historical precedents. That said, it doesn't mean it will realistically happen apart from genuine conversion of our legislators, which continues to be exclusively under the purview of the church to carry out.
My biggest point is that it's fine for fellow Baptists to diverge from each other on this front, specifically a position that doesn't call for actual establishmentarianism (i.e. being a "magisterial Baptist). Not seeing eye-to-eye doesn't make any one of us less of a Baptist than the other, which was the main intention of my own piece.
I do wonder if this debate and paedo vs credo-baptism are deep down the same debate. I would express it as such:
Given that salvation precedes sanctification, our interaction with non-believers should be evangelistic and not moral
The extreme example of this would be a parent who says “I don’t discipline my kids; I just share the gospel with them and once they repent then we can address behaviour”. At some point, the one making this claim is a fool or a liar.
Yet people in all seriousness say “Christians should not apply Christian norms to society, even if they have the power to do so”.
Norms are not a substitute for repentance. But this has been a known issue for millenia, even within the community of the people of God. But when “others” are guests in “your” space, it is good and appropriate to expect them to respect your norms. Foreigners in Israel were expected to follow Israel’s rules regarding Sabbaths and all, even while being excluded from the temple! Some of them even came to faith because of it
There is a “cart before the horse” issue here for the CN side: seeking cultural power as a proxy for evangelism is worldly. But it’s one thing to avoid putting the cart before the horse, and other to never hitch up horse & cart despite having both ready to go
Thanks for reading and joining the discussion. You make a good point. I'm not against advocating for Christian laws. I think Christians should speak loudly to represent what God has revealed to be true, righteous, and beautiful in the public square. But we're kidding ourselves if we think such efforts will lead to a renewed Christendom. One of my big issues is how Christian proponents of these ideas so often don't seem as excited about evangelism, missions, and church planting. Another point--when you talk about expecting foreigners to respect norms in your space, I'm not sure Christian norms are the norms in our American space. That's just the truth on the ground. To reverse that trend, I'm just not buying the CN piped ream.
“If a Christian Nationalist is defined as someone who wants every nation, especially their own, to submit to Christ, then count me in.
But the sensible person knows that’s not what we’re really debating.”
I’ve observed that Christian Nationalists use rhetoric like this to disarm their target audience but then smuggle in the rest of their ideas.
It is what comes after their initial premise that concerns me so much.
I don't think it's fair to position Mohler's contentions as trying to "establish" Christianity in any way. Like my Lyceum piece from a while back, it's perfectly fine for Baptists to encourage the state to recognize Christianity or Christian moral principles in a civil sense without enforcing confessional Christianity on anyone. Furthermore, it's pretty consistent with Backus' own theology at least to see a robust defense of religious liberty as essentially predicated upon Christian principles.
Hey Flynn, thanks for joining the conversation. Did I equate Mohler's position with trying to "establish' Christianity here? I've tried to be careful not to use that language. However, I'm very interested to see him elaborate more on how he envisions his doctrine of Christian acknowledgement working out in practice. To my knowledge, that hasn't been presented yet. Also, I don't disagree with your point about Baptists advocating for Christian principles in the public square. In our constitutional order we have as much right as anyone else to urge laws consistent with truth and righteousness as revealed.
I don't think you're directly accusing him of outright establishmentarianism, so I suppose I should qualify my initial comment. However, I'm not convinced that he's guilty of "looking to the government for help" in the hopes of eventually Christianizing America. His main point in that address was to simply note that the sustainability of American democracy was de facto predicated upon the longevity of Christian principles and that it's not improper for the US government to affirm such. For example, Andrew Walker has contended that it's consistent for him as a Baptist to be against establishmentarianism (including the likes of myself and Dr. Mohler) while also find it to be civilly licit to post the Ten Commandments in federal buildings as a recognition of what has historically informed Western jurisprudence and governance in the Anglo-American tradition. In that sense, I don't believe Mohler is going further than arguing that the federal government simply needs to be more intellectually consistent with its historical precedents. That said, it doesn't mean it will realistically happen apart from genuine conversion of our legislators, which continues to be exclusively under the purview of the church to carry out.
My biggest point is that it's fine for fellow Baptists to diverge from each other on this front, specifically a position that doesn't call for actual establishmentarianism (i.e. being a "magisterial Baptist). Not seeing eye-to-eye doesn't make any one of us less of a Baptist than the other, which was the main intention of my own piece.
I do wonder if this debate and paedo vs credo-baptism are deep down the same debate. I would express it as such:
Given that salvation precedes sanctification, our interaction with non-believers should be evangelistic and not moral
The extreme example of this would be a parent who says “I don’t discipline my kids; I just share the gospel with them and once they repent then we can address behaviour”. At some point, the one making this claim is a fool or a liar.
Yet people in all seriousness say “Christians should not apply Christian norms to society, even if they have the power to do so”.
Norms are not a substitute for repentance. But this has been a known issue for millenia, even within the community of the people of God. But when “others” are guests in “your” space, it is good and appropriate to expect them to respect your norms. Foreigners in Israel were expected to follow Israel’s rules regarding Sabbaths and all, even while being excluded from the temple! Some of them even came to faith because of it
There is a “cart before the horse” issue here for the CN side: seeking cultural power as a proxy for evangelism is worldly. But it’s one thing to avoid putting the cart before the horse, and other to never hitch up horse & cart despite having both ready to go
Andrew,
Thanks for reading and joining the discussion. You make a good point. I'm not against advocating for Christian laws. I think Christians should speak loudly to represent what God has revealed to be true, righteous, and beautiful in the public square. But we're kidding ourselves if we think such efforts will lead to a renewed Christendom. One of my big issues is how Christian proponents of these ideas so often don't seem as excited about evangelism, missions, and church planting. Another point--when you talk about expecting foreigners to respect norms in your space, I'm not sure Christian norms are the norms in our American space. That's just the truth on the ground. To reverse that trend, I'm just not buying the CN piped ream.