/*
Notes on second publish:
Turns out blogger actually tells me when this was originally published. There's like a history for it in the editor. That's pretty nice. This post was originally dropped 5/31/2019
Around that time (I am doing this from memory, and I moved very frequently to new housing situations at that time, so I'm not 100% sure...) I think I was living in Arizona still, and I was probably in Ahwatukee. Based on my attitude in the post, I believe this is from before our housing situation became a crisis.
The verbiage I used in this post has not aged well.
In those days, I (very naively) thought that I was coining "Christian Nationalist" anew. I took it to refer to someone who believed that Christians are a distinct nation (that is, having Jesus as king, rather than whatever government happens to rule the secular environment around them). Back then, there was even a time when I elected to put "Christian Nationalist" on my drivers license as my declared political party.
Nowadays, however, I have been made aware that Christian Nationalism seems associated with race realism and prudence-legislative systems like natural law jurisprudence. I'm very much opposed to Christian Nationalism anymore.
Also, it seems that "theocrat" has recently taken on some meaning which is different from what I intend. I often see it used by people who advocate a human Christian monarch other than Christ, or a state enforced denomination. I am opposed to both of those things.
The uncommon pejorative "Christofascist" does not seem to have caught on with any popular groups. Insofar as I take it to mean that Christ has authority by virtue of his ontological position relative to ourselves, I am still comfortable with the term.
The term "theonomist" has become an umbrella term for various groups which claim to respect God's law in the Bible. I like the term, but it is unfortunately misleading because of the relative prevalence of Christian Nationalists who call themselves theonomists. It's not enough for me to say "I'm a lancastrian theonomist", because people don't get it. I don't think there is a term for my position which can be readily discerned by laypeople to sum up my position ("non-legislative" is pretty good, but it's such a mouthful that it seems to go over people's heads without entering).
Based on my comments about proposed anti-abortion laws being unjust by failing to demand accountability from fathers, I think that I had not yet adopted my present form of Christian separatism (maybe this is the term I should adopt?). I was still basically arguing for legislation. I hint at it in the post, ("the Bible is a complete system"), but I don't know if I had fully realized the implications of that systematization. You can't hold men accountable justly without Biblical forced marriages or bride prices. You can hardly force a marriage without regulating divorce, and can't enforce a Biblical bride price without something to account for nonpayment (i.e. Biblical slavery). You can't have Biblical slavery without Biblical protections against battery and the jubilee release of slaves. You can't have Biblical release of slaves without Biblical land laws. You can't have the Biblical land laws and Biblical protections without Biblical judicial structures. And so on and so on.
So, basically, I'm an abolitionist. I'm opposed to incrementalism, but not just to incrementalism in abortion legislation. I'm opposed to incrementalism as an approach to the total government.
*/
That song always gets me pumped to be more open about my faith. Every time I hear this, it makes me wanna go buy a shirt with the words "Theocrat, Theonomist, Christofascist, Christian Nationalist" on it and wear it everywhere.
I revived Fido the Spider. He died with Flash a long time ago, but Bunny Hero Labs recently(?) made an option for sites that don't use flash. He's not interactive anymore, but it's good to see him hanging out in the corner of my blog again. Maybe someday they'll make him interactive without flash 😵.
Also, been thinking more about my epistemological argument. I think I struggle a lot with describing the form of the argument. What I present isn't, "here's the proof that solipsism is wrong". In fact, I think I injure my argument by referencing solipsism at all.
Rather, perhaps the only way to approach the argument is by asking, "If it is true that we are able to know things, what possible scenario can there be to justify our knowledge of the truth?" or "Describe a world wherein we have a justified awareness of the fact that we are able to justify knowledge of truth. What must be true in that world?"
I've also been thinking hard about my views on Christian Nationalism. The more I consider my circumstance and the world, the more my feelings about the issue become a mix of discouragement at my own inability to affect change and encouragement at the changes I see happening slowly around me.
I know I've talked about this several times now, but...
I keep an eye on Apologia's ministry, which I believe is a good ministry, and for which I'm thankful. Lately, Apologia has noted several pro-choice people arguing that there must be "other" changes made to the law before abortion can be illegal. They propose changes such as an increase in the availability of contraceptives, so I disagree with them on that point... (I don't have anything against contraceptives, but I think that only married people should be using them, so I don't think they help this argument)... But those pro-choice people are right that other changes must be made in conjunction with making abortion illegal. In fact, the Bible spends quite a bit of ink discussing the various relationships in which a woman may be with the father of her children, what legal responsibilities the father has towards her, and what moral responsibilities society has toward her. Indeed, if we simply made abortion illegal today, without those other laws, we would do injustice to the woman.
The Bible is a complete and interdependent system, and so we can't pretend to do ultimate justice by protecting children while neglecting justice to the mother. With respect to the civil law, yes, abortion should be made illegal immediately, AND also, fathers should be held legally accountable according to Biblical principles immediately. I'm convinced that we shoot ourselves in the foot by pushing for one without the other.
But when we implement just requirements on fathers, and just restrictions on parents, namely that they cannot murder their unborn children, we must also implement other codes which shape society in a way that enables those requirements on parents to make sense. Again, the Bible is a complete system. It doesn't make sense to implore the U.S. government to legislate partial justice.
That said, I would never tell Apologia to stop what they're doing. The deaths of those children are tragic, and should certainly be stopped.
The reason I brought up the abortion topic was to give an example of a place where nonChristians are slowly approaching scriptural standards -- not because of the efforts of Christians, but in spite of the efforts of Christians. The Bible says that God will do it by means of His own Zeal, for His Name's Sake, which His people have slandered among the nations. I am confident that God will do it, and I'm humbled by my inability to affect it with my own power. Nevertheless, I will wait for my opportunity, and perhaps God will show me the open door to establish a place governed by His precepts (entirely), or perhaps God will give me the opportunity to impress upon some other person, more blessed than I, the superior equity and beauty of God's perfect law.
Again, I've made that argument several times, but it's still fresh on my mind. I would like to give it to Apologia and get their thoughts sometime soon. I doubt they would disagree with me about the inconsistency in their approach, but no kind person is immune to their own emotions, and the murder of all those babies can't be allowed to continue if they have anything to say about it.
"There is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed."
No comments:
Post a Comment