The world, moreover, cannot be surrendered to Satan. It is God’s world and must be brought under God’s law, politically, economically, and in every other way possible.
The Enlightenment, by its savage and long-standing attack on Biblical faith, has brought about the long retreat of Christianity from a full-orbed faith to a kind of last-ditch battle centering around the doctrines of salvation and of the infallible Scripture.
The time has come for a full-scale offensive, and it has indeed begun, to bring every area of thought into captivity to Christ, to establish the whole counsel of God and every implication of His infallible Word.
Rusdoony, R.J. (1969). The Biblical Philosophy of History [ebook]. Ross House Books, Vallecito, Location 260-64
This was back in 2015, and I can only hope the percentages have increased since then:
A new poll from Public Policy Polling is making headlines this week because it reveals that 57 percent of Republican primary voters want to make Christianity the national religion, even though doing so would require removing the First Amendment from the Constitution.
Even more interestingly, the data shows a stark gender divide among Republicans polled on this question: 66 percent of Republican women versus 49 percent of Republican men would like to see America become more theocratic…
The gender divide persists when the poll looks at which potential primary candidates male and female Republicans support. Politicians who are seen as more libertarian or more supportive of corporate interests (Rand Paul, Scott Walker) get more love from men, whereas candidates that are more on the [Biblical] side of the equation (Mike Huckabee) are more popular with women.
The Christian ought to be extremely interested in politics because the political issues and decisions affect him at the very core of this activity on earth.
Christians are to be the salt of the earth. We have no right to say that politics is dirty, that politicians are crooks, and that we never have a decent choice when we have done nothing to influence politics…
A handful of Christians can have a wholesome effect on politics. To withdraw and retreat from any area of God’s world is to say that God is not sovereign over that area.
Thoburn, R.L. (1984). The Christian and Politics. 2nd edition. Thoburn Press, Tyler, pp. 19-20
Some have argued that it doesn’t matter where a candidate stands on abortion since the laws never really change. After all, we’re told, after 20 years of Reagan, Bush and Bush, Roe v. Wade was still not overturned.
That’s true, but one reason is that we also had 16 years of Clinton and Obama. What would have happened if we had 36 years of presidents in the mold of Reagan? What if the progress made under a pro-life president wasn’t undone by a pro-abortion president? What if all presidential appointees to the Supreme Court were pro-life during the last 36 years? The answers are self-evident.
And let’s not minimize the progress that has been made in different states, including requiring women to view an ultrasound of their baby before aborting. Thank God for every life saved.
The bottom line is this: Can you look at pictures of aborted babies — such as baby Malachi — and read verses about God’s hatred of killing children and then vote for a candidate who aggressively defends a woman’s “right” to this bloodshed, even into the ninth month?
It’s one thing to be uncertain about voting for Trump (or other candidates). It’s another thing to vote for a radical, pro-abortion candidate like Hillary Clinton.
Deuteronomy had a similar impact on the Christian world. Whenever Christian theologians, political philosophers or reformers sought biblical sources for political ideas, they turned to Deuteronomy as a major Scriptural source.
The use of Deuteronomy reached its apogee during the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries when the founders of the new Swiss, Huguenot, Rhineland, Dutch, Puritan, and Scottish commonwealths rested their polities on Deuteronomic foundations.
The culmination of this trend came at the time of the American revolutionary polemical literature between 1765 and 1805. As Donald Lutz has pointed out, Deuteronomy was cited more frequently than all citations of European political philosophers combined, a major source for the myriad political sermons of the period.
It would be silly, foolish, to object to the Church on the grounds that it is “traditionalist”. The whole strength of the Church is that it is faithful to its tradition – otherwise, what is the Church for? If the Church is going to become a political party which merely adapts its beliefs to changing opinions, it can be safely dismissed altogether, because there are political parties doing such things. If the Church is there to sanctify and bless in advance every change in intellectual and moral fashion in our civilisation, then again – what is the Church for? The Church is strong because it has a traditional teaching, a spiritual kernel, which it considers its immutable essence. It cannot just yield to any pressure from people who think that whatever is in fashion at the present moment should immediately be adopted by the Church as its own teaching, whether in the field of political ideas or of daily life.
My two cents
Now that’s my kind of church! Moral relativism begone. How encouraging to see there are still some churches remaining as an unshakeable pillar of consistency that withstands everything leaking from the sewer of our culture.
The church that doesn’t “get with the times” is the church Jesus established with St. Peter. I don’t recall the Lord telling his believers to keep changing (or side with whatever new political doctrine, linguistic device, or policy platform being pushed along by the mainstream media).
Christianity was not about “getting with the times”; it is about defining the times and sticking to it no matter what. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved (Matthew 24:13).
Increasing numbers of Christians are engaging in social and political activism for the astonishing purpose of attempting to coerce an ungodly society into adopting Christian standards of conduct.
Romans 13 tells us to obey rulers, and 1 Timothy 2 to pray for them—not to attempt to change them by coercion. It is not only foolish but counterproductive to attempt to persuade the unsaved to live like Christians. They can’t do it—and if they could it would only blind them the more to their sin and need of a Savior.
(quoting Buddy Hanson)
Christianity is not to be lived in quiet seclusion with the only application of the truths we believe taking place inside our homes and churches. On the contrary, we are commanded to approach everyday tasks within a corporate or covenantal context. The pietistic attitude of “not forcing our beliefs on others” is not Biblical. It was the seventeenth-century English philosopher John Locke who popularised the idea that Christianity is a private concern. Since Locke and other Enlightenment leaders thought that man’s reason ruled supreme, it was only logical for them to encourage Christians to remain silent when it came to cultural matters, because in their view, “spiritual thoughts” were not relevant to “real life”.
My two cents
If Dave Hunt and Buddy Hanson were locked in a room, I’d love to hear them hammer out their points to see who would win. I’d like to know what Hunt would have to say about John Locke. If we’re not supposed “to attempt to persuade the unsaved to live like Christians” then I suppose that applies to mission work as well; pushing that to its logical conclusion, perhaps the apostles should have stayed at home. They might have been the root cause of political revolutions in the name of Christ.
Yes, Romans 13 tells us to obey rulers, but by no means does that make it an absolute. If we can never challenge an unchristian political or social order, then I guess genocide, human sacrifice, and cannibalism are morally neutral after all—just so long as it’s not Christians who are doing it.
Contrary to Hunt’s assertion, the unsaved can be persuaded to live like Christians, through both missionary and political means. To say that unbelievers can’t be persuaded? With God, nothing is impossible. I’m surprised that an Arminian would be so Calvinist.