/*

Commentary from 2026:

I still agree with this sort of coherentist foundationalism, but these days I'm not as interested in epistemic philosophy as I used to be. It's a fun diversion and it's important to dig into it, but I'm disappointed by the way that Christian philosophers build on secular philosophical history all the time. The bottom line, really, is that God has revealed Himself to us, and this revelation was, as to its mode and content, sufficient to resolve the big epistemic question.

Skeptics don't actually exist, but only put up a pretense of skepticism whenever confronted with things they don't like. A God is not on trial, but that which can be known about him is known to all, and so all are without excuse. What remains is not a question of God's existence, nor how we are justified in knowing things, but how we rightly interpret the things we know -- hermeneutics is the ultimate end of Christian epistemology, and the queen of philosophy and science alike.

Empirical inquiry supplies us with referents for biblical words. Biblical words supply us with interpretations of empirical data. The Bible, fitted with external referents, informs the right hermeneutic method for interpreting itself, which in turn supplies accurate explanations of its referents. Those Biblical explanations constrain interpretive liberty in empirical inquiry. So, in every way, our knowledge is built up through God's revelation.

*/

Today I want to offer a categorical description of my philosophy, either to say more with fewer words or to obfuscate the matter. I'm a little bothered by this kind of denomination, because I feel like the words I'm about to use were devised with intent to describe what I believe to be proper methodology for acquiring answers, but they don't describe the answers themselves; whereas I think that the answers are only as correct as the methodology used to obtain them I do not like the way that discussion about philosophical denominations may tempt readers to limit themselves to a protracted study of methodology without ever learning the conclusions drawn thereby.

I suppose that strict, "strong" foundationalism accurately describes the situation we live in, epistemologically, and that the epistemic information comprising (what you might call) our basic "foundational" knowledge, must be indubitable, incorrigible, and infallible. However, I am not convinced that human language necessarily supports articulating the specific information contained in our basic knowledge at this time. Granting that we do have the information required to justify knowledge, I am convinced that some information about the mechanism by which we obtain and/or utilize that basic knowledge can be gained by applying a combination of strict deduction and empiricism, with a view to the universal coherence of all true information (where "coherence" means that an idea contradicts neither itself nor any other information known to be true). That same methodology, combining deduction and empiricism, I believe, is the method by which we can trace out relationships between our conclusions and our basic knowledge. That said, I'm not convinced that a detailed awareness of the contents of our basic knowledge is necessary for an epistemological system to be complete and fool-proof; only an acknowledgement that, whatever the contents are, they satisfy the basic conditions for epistemology and intelligibility.

That's not to say we shouldn't attempt to learn the contents of basic knowledge. I just think that there are more important parts of the system which should be fortified with stable articulation first, and I don't know if I will have enough time in my life to complete the project.

I think that it's common in modern society to simultaneously advocate empiricism while refusing to practice it, undermining the contents of whatever foundational knowledge we have (because the whole purpose of the foundational knowledge is to support our empirical abilities). Furthermore, it can be well-argued that this deluded rejection of empiricism is practiced by literally every person who propones an explanation for reality, because epistemological theories are naturally impossible to test. So it is unproductive to argue that a theory lacks empirical basis, or that a theory lacks consistency with interpretations of empirical data which depend on alternative theories. Therefore, an epistemological theory distinguishes itself only by being well-developed and coherent. The more thoroughly developed it is, the more complex it is, the greater its likelihood of being incoherent; thus a well-developed theory which does not sacrifice coherence is a good theory and may as well be held true by its advocates until demonstrated otherwise, or until a more well-developed while coherent theory is made known to them. I believe that incoherence is the distinguishing feature of falsehood, and there is only one set of information rightly called "true", so there is only one possible fully-developed and coherent theory.

Some people attempt to circumvent this by refusing to develop their theories; a theory which is underdeveloped can be simple and internally consistent, and so it may be difficult to demonstrate its failure to resolve the epistemological problem without first developing the theory. I recently had a discussion with one such person, who actually told me that justifying his ideas was unnecessary for him, "because I'm not a foundationalist" -- but then he didn't name any epistemological theory which he could actually advocate; he simply said "the answer is probably a combination of all theories", which was an effective refusal to develop his ideas. I might post more details of that conversation in a later blog, because he was a fascinating example of certain intellectual roadblocks, for which I am needful of constant reminders to avoid, and in which I am regularly fearful that I might also partake.

"The [...] forecast had estimated the output of boots for the quarter at 145 million pairs. The actual output was given as sixty-two millions. Winston, however, in rewriting the forecast, marked the figure down to fifty-seven millions, so as to allow for the usual claim that the quota had been over-fulfilled. In any case, sixty-two millions was no nearer the truth than fifty-seven millions, or than 145 millions. Very likely no boots had been produced at all. Likelier still, nobody knew how many had been produced, much less cared. All one knew was that every quarter astronomical numbers of boots were produced on paper, while perhaps half the population of Oceania went barefoot. And so it was with every class of recorded fact, great or small."

/*

Commentary from repost 7/8/2026.

This post was from 6/25/2019, and it has aged very well. If I undertook to find contemporary links for the 1984 list, I would do it more easily, and find "enlightened" (or at least popular) people not only tolerating and defending these things, but celebrating them. 

But today I'm short on time, which is good because I don't think I have very much to add. I like this post, and I'm basically in agreement with it. Only, at the time when I wrote this I was probably feeling a mixture of awe and amazement at Christianity's neglect for God's law in the face of issues for which it is so clearly relevant. Nowadays I think about this stuff, and it just makes me feel sad, because we're going that way and I'm not sure there's anything to be done about it.

*/

Listening to 1984 while I work these days, and I couldn't help but notice a list of qualities he issues to characterize a government which is treading toward dystopian authoritarianism. Here's the quote:

"And in the general hardening of outlook that set in round about 1930, practices which had been long abandoned, in some cases for hundreds of years—imprisonment without trial, the use of war prisoners as slaves, public executions, torture to extract confessions, the use of hostages, and the deportation of whole populations—not only became common again, but were tolerated and even defended by people who considered themselves enlightened and progressive."

The argument here is that those things started happening in society, but society was hardened to it so they didn't think it was all that bad. In fact, they celebrated it as if it were enlightened. Where, in fact, those things were characteristic of a society deteriorating into some kind of dystopian nightmare.

Let's break down that list, for fun:

imprisonment without trial

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remand_(detention)

the use of war prisoners as slaves

• https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/07/us/terrorists-in-us-prisons.html
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labor_in_the_United_States

public executions

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment

torture to extract confessions

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_and_the_United_States#Defining_%22torture%22
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

the use of hostages

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban_Five

deportation of whole populations

• https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1140791400658870274

So, what's my point?

Both the republican and democratic parties in the United States are going in the same direction. The left simultaneously advocates socialism and rejects the practices advocated by members of the right, while those same practices were historically performed by socialists!

Americans are presented with a false dichotomy every 4 years, and we eat it up. How many times during the last election was I told by my friends, "If you vote 3rd party, you're supporting Hillary!"

What do we do? To whom do we turn? Who's right? What system of government should I advocate? Well, Psalm 19 makes this an easy decision for Christians.

"The law of the Lord is perfect,
    refreshing the soul.
The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy,
    making wise the simple.
The precepts of the Lord are right,
    giving joy to the heart.
The commands of the Lord are radiant,
    giving light to the eyes.
The fear of the Lord is pure,
    enduring forever.
The decrees of the Lord are firm,
    and all of them are righteous.
They are more precious than gold,
    than much pure gold;
they are sweeter than honey,
    than honey from the honeycomb.
By them your servant is warned;
    in keeping them there is great reward."

When it says, "law", you know what the Hebrew word was in that passage? It was "Torah" (i.e. Gen through Deut). This is a passage from the Old Testament. That means, yes, the Psalmist is saying that Leviticus refreshes the soul and gives joy to the heart; Numbers is sweeter than honey, making wise the simple; Deuteronomy gives light to the eyes and warns God's servants, in keeping the law of God is great reward.

"Dirty Water."

/*
Notes on second publish (2026 07 07):

Wow, this one hasn't aged well.

I probably would get in a lot of trouble for trying to psychoanalyze minorities today (and probably back then, too). The stuff about cultural biases is basically valid, and my affection for African American culture didn't disappear. My portrayal of their cultural struggle is basically drawn directly from things I read in their own sources. I can't really retract any of that, but my thoughts on things like CRT, intergenerational trauma, and the "solution" to economic disparity have changed a lot since posting this as well, and those new ideas would definitely change the shape of what I presented here.

On the other hand, after having posted this, I dug deep into my family history. I'm pleased to say that I don't get to take credit for stealing land or prima nocta, at least. I don't retract my statement about us being criminals, because all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and the wages of sin are death. We all deserve it, but God has had mercy on us.

As far as taking responsibility for the actions of other people, that's a difficult topic which I've spent quite a lot of time working out in my own studies. Ezekiel 18 makes very clear that each person's guilt rests solely on themselves, but Jeremiah 45 tells us that corporate guilt affects whole nations and includes hardship even for those who don't share in the guilt. 2 Sam 21 is maybe the best case study for something like "reparations", but it amounts to harm for the guilty parties alone. The idea that the whole community is punished for failure to do justice to guilty individuals is coherent with the law in Deut 13 concerning corporate punishment and Israel's behavior toward Benjamin in Judges 20. It leads us to wonder what should be done if children inherit a society where justice was not done and the criminals died of natural causes. Thankfully, there's no civil penalty prescribed for total failure to do penalties, (except Deut 13 which requires an overarching society to come in judgment from outside), so the children of unjust parents aren't required to punish prior generations for failing to punish the criminals themselves. It seems God does the justice in those instances, and the kids (if any are permitted to become heads of house themselves) have the opportunity to establish a clean society by means of corporate repentance.

*/

I've been thinking about race and culture lately. I realize there's a distinction, but imo irl they often come coupled. I'm a white, middle-class, Christian man, and if that makes you think "this guy probably doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to race issues", then you've proved my point. My father is from England (about 4% Choctaw), and my mother is Irish. My understanding is that my mother's family fled to the U.S. during the potato famine, but my father's family was English nobility (granted, we were living in a shelter when I was born).

My wife is Korean, and she's taught me that culture isn't something which you can just decide to adapt to. There are things which I think are "just" right or wrong, without justification, and she also has that kind of cultural absolutism built into her way of thinking in certain areas. I think everybody does. Many of our prejudices are held without us even realizing it; much of what we believe has never been articulated with words either by or to us. In fact, sometimes we even recognize where we hold some (potentially false) idea to be true, but we reject the thought of changing our minds on the topic, because things are just "so" sometimes. I think I couldn't have learned this lesson about myself without having married her -- because Korean culture is so different from U.S. culture.

Many of these biases and cultural predilections are not bad things. They are even beneficial to us; enriching our lives, adding to our sense of identity, and enabling us to describe the world in terms that make sense. "I believe ____", and, "I see ____", are healthy statements of individual actualization. Furthermore, these leanings bind us to our heritage, making us feel like part of a family that reaches far into the past. More so for her than for me, I think, but nonetheless we both have certain aspects of our heritages which we are proud to identify with.

My wife taught me this lesson, but she isn't the only person who taught it to me. Contrast realizes abstract learning. I listen to a lot of rap, hip hop, R&B, gospel, and really any African American music I can get my hands on while I work and while I drive. My dad, my brother, my grandfather, my uncle, and my cousins are drummers, and my mom was a poet -- I love the rhythms and the lyrics. I'm infatuated with their art. But there's a common theme, expressed in a way most plainly understandable to me by the artist, Propaganda. I can't pretend to speak for them, but it seems plain to me that they are upset because they don't like American culture (with good reason), and their ancestors were unjustly taken away from another culture, but it's too late to go back because they've been loosely integrated into this nation by several generations. Even if they wanted to go back, they wouldn't fit in, they wouldn't speak the language, and they might not even know what part of the continent they came from. To make matters worse, the unfortunate reality is that minorities are disproportionately impoverished in America, making it feel difficult to achieve anything at all. They want to have those ancient cultural absolutes built into their way of thinking, but they don't, and it hurts their sense of identity.

But they have something I don't have, and for which I'm jealous. They love the culture of their ancestors. Don't get me wrong, I love my immediate family's culture, and that was established by my parents; I'm not ashamed to be white by any means, nor do I feel guilty for crimes which were not committed by me. But the farther I reach back into my family history, the uglier it gets. Whether it's oppressing our neighbors, and even our brothers, stealing land and moving boundaries, adultery, prima nocta, murder, abusing scripture, hating knowledge of God, or whatever other bad thing you want to mention, we've probably done it. In fact, if justice were done rightly, then my great great great great grandparents would probably have been executed, and I never born. For that matter, if justice were done right in the land, then Saul of Tarsus probably would have been executed for murder. Should I be grateful that the law of the land was unjust? I should say not, but God worked it out for His glory and His merciful plan, and so God is good when all men are evil.

I recognize that there is a place for people groups to take responsibility for actions committed by others in their land, to cleanse the land -- it's Biblical even, that land gets polluted when innocent blood is shed on it, and the land has to be cleansed by justice, and by the repentance of its people.

So what's the practical application? What does national repentance look like, at this point?

...From my frame of reference, the obvious answer is that everyone in America should first repent of their own sins, (including the sin of unbelief), and then do away with these unjust laws which passively oppress our neighbors, implement just laws, and thereby establish a more equitable system of government.

Before I close this out, I should discuss LGBTTQQIAAP (... or is it LGBTTIQQ2SA? QUILTBAG? just LGBT? Should there really be an I or Q in there? One A or two? I just want to make sure I'm not stepping on anyone's toes) pride today because Google is highlighting it, and...you know...2 Corinthians 10:5.

They celebrate it as if it's a new thing for people to be proud of sexual deviation, but this kind of thing has been done for several millenia -- and not just by individuals hiding in their proverbial closets, but by entire nations at a time. There's nothing new about it. You see, the thing is, although they know God's law, wherein such things are so wrong as to be made capital offenses, they not only do those things themselves, but they applaud people who do likewise. (Romans 1:32)

I love my gay friends and neighbors, (says the guy who just advocated God's word, and thereby capital punishment). I'll hang out with them, and we can have a good time whenever we're together -- because everybody sins and I know that I deserve death just as much as them. But my friends know my thoughts on the matter of our sin and need for Christ. I can't be proud of their crimes with them.

Lastly, I just want to be clear, when I make fun of that movement by doing things like messing with the acronym and stuff, it's not intended as a personal attack on those individuals. I honestly think the whole idea that our sexuality is part of our identity, and the way that that is used as an anthropo-ontological argument against sexuality-based discriminatory conversation, is really a steaming heap of poorly-seasoned sophistry. There are good, rational arguments to be made for why a secular nation should be totally accepting of homosexual marriage, etc, but those arguments come with lateral consequences that should be accepted by their advocates in this movement -- namely that they leave every form of sexual gratification in a state of moral ambiguity for lack of a clear, imminent, objective moral guideline. But that is really the logical end of secularism anyway, afaict.

"Hopeless, so we all learn Swahili as if we knew we were from that region. Silly, we know, but what are you supposed to do when all you know; your closest cultural customs are similar to your captors?"

/*

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.

*/

Listening to the classics today:

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."

I've been asked a couple of times about the Sabbath and Lord's Day recently. Why do we worship on the Lord's Day instead of the Sabbath? Why don't we observe the Sabbath religiously? What does it mean that Jesus is the Sabbath Lord? How did Jesus Fulfill the Sabbath? Why was breaking the Sabbath a capital offense in the OT? Here's how I understand all this:

The Sabbath is called "God's Rest" in scripture. There are a few other things with that name in Scripture, among them the Promised Land and Heaven (Heb 3 to 4). Old Testament Israel was built around acting out physical ceremonies in order to reflect spiritual realities (Heb 10:1, Col 2:17). In the case of the Sabbath, they were reflecting the end of God's Work on earth (Gen 2:2-3), and God's Rest in heaven which will be shared with us after the end of the world. Following the metaphor, in the OT, to reject the Sabbath physically would have been (by reflection) like rejecting heaven spiritually; a rejection of God's rest and peace. So the physical death penalty in the OT is an appropriate reflection of the spiritual death penalty which follows a rejection of God's salvation and peace with God (Ex 31:12-17).

When Israel was on its way to the promised land, they rejected God and hardened their hearts. So God said about them, "they will never enter my rest", and made them wander in the desert until that generation was gone. The psalmist later says about this, "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as Israel did in the wilderness". Hebrews 3:7-4:13 cites both of these passages, and makes a connection between them, saying "As long as it is called today, encourage one another so that you don't harden your hearts". Then saying, "We who have believed enter that rest" and "God set aside a certain day, calling it 'today'", and, "there remains for some to enter that rest". So believers enter into that rest, and those elect who have not yet believed will enter it later. The new day of entering into God's rest, in the New Covenant, is every day that we call "today", so basically every day. Every day is the Sabbath for Christians. We are called to strive to enter into God's rest every day, and keep every day holy.

But then why Sunday? And why do we work? Saturday is the sabbath, but Christians worship on Sunday. When Jesus died and rested in death through the sabbath, he rose again on the third day, (Easter Sunday). The church fathers wrote that they chose to worship on Sunday as a celebration of Jesus's resurrection. Jesus killed our sin, which bound us in slavery to the flesh, by dying and staying dead through the sabbath, and he rose again on Sunday, raising us to life with him.

In this new life we received, we are no longer slaves to the flesh, and so we aren't subjected to the same kind of work that we were previously bound to. We continue to work (Col 3:23), but it is restful work under our new master. Jesus says, "my burden is light, and my yoke is easy" (Matt 11:28-30), and Paul wrote, "the peace of God which surpasses all understanding will guard your heart and mind" (Phil 4:7). The sabbath rest in the New Covenant is that spiritual rest in Jesus Christ, which we receive by the influence of the Holy Spirit in our hearts.

So Christians are called to observe the sabbath every day by resting in the comfort of our master, Jesus. His father, who has adopted us, provides for our every need (Matt 6:25-34), so that now rather than "living by the sweat on our brow" (Gen 3:19) in a cursed state of existence, we live in Christ as new creations, born again into spiritual purity and eternal life. So we have no worries; no concern; no struggle in this life, except to love our God in a way worthy of the name Christian.

"Either you're born twice and die once, or you're born once and die twice."

I want to be as sure as possible that nobody gets the wrong idea about what I advocate, and what being a Christian Nationalist means to me in practice....  but I really wish I had someone like-minded to talk me through some of this and help me flesh out these ideas... Some of this gets really complicated, and I have to walk my mind through from scratch to my conclusions over and over in order that I don't forget why I believe these things.

In this post, I'm going to walk through one such train-of-thought. This is, real-time, me confusing myself and then reminding myself about why I believe what I believe.

When I talk about Biblical civil laws and their penalties, I recognize that in large part, for any person or group in America to enforce those penalties would be to violate U.S. Law.

The question is not whether we ought to have a Christian government with laws that directly conform with scripture. By any imminent definition of "ought", we ought to. In fact, we are in an awkward position because there is no such Christian government on earth. There is no civil authority to execute justice justly.

As I've written before, we do have the church government, which is structurally similar (if not identical in some churches) to the Biblical civil government, and in many ways the church government is functionally identical to the system of judges in the OT. However, consider this: as I've established in prior posts, we are not to file lawsuits against our brothers and sisters in Christ according to the normal civil means. However, no such injunction exists for the "foreigner" (with respect to covenant Israel, the foreigner is the nonbeliever), and the law says multiple times, "you shall have the same law for the foreigner as for the native born" (Exodus 12:49; Leviticus 19:34, 24:22; Numbers 15:29; Deuteronomy 10:19).

We have so carefully impressed in our minds a difference between the role of church and the role of state. This difference is indeed Biblical inasmuch as the judicial government in Scripture was distinguished from the priesthood. But what does it mean, then, that the priesthood is fulfilled in Christ? Biblically speaking, what is the church if not the full body of believing people, physically indistinguishable from the people themselves? And if that is the case, can a government be anything if not composed of people? Doesn't it mean that the NT "church" is not the "priesthood" in that sense, and so the distinction is moot in the New Covenant?

Suppose we decide that the church government is suddenly the in-force civil government for Christians. Wouldn't the consequence be that we thereafter go to the church for civil issues regarding the foreigners living among us? After all, if Jesus is King over earth right now, (and he is, Matthew 28:18), then it is not us who live as foreigners among them, in their land, but they who live among us, in Christ's land. And then what? Penalize ignorant strangers for crimes against God's law according to God's civil penalties, and thereby start a war with the secular government of the land we're living in? No way! We would make ourselves seem no better than radical Muslims!

No, the NT church in the days of the apostles was surrounded by Roman lawlessness, and they conducted no such violent action in the name of justice -- neither should we. Thus, there is something seriously and dangerously wrong with the above chain of reasoning.

Why didn't the apostles immediately establish a community executing just laws? It's because they had a higher priority task, as do we. They were sent to make disciples of all nations, teaching and baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Given the injunction to not file civil suit against your brother in Christ, how could they even practice such a government among Christians alone?

So we suppose that working to establish an independent or sovereign state with its own civil system in the midst of a secular nation is not high enough on the Christian priority list to fight for it. However, given the option to establish either a just law or an unjust law, we are compelled to choose the just in accordance with God's statutes. And, given the option to formulate our own system of government, we may only choose the best, which is God's government.

What then do we make of the commandment to rescue those going to slaughter? And when do zealous, active forms of civil disobedience become justified?

Guys, I have no idea.  For lack of an independent and sovereign Christian Nation, I don't see true justice succeeding in the law of the land. Only, I'm talking to an empty room! There's nobody else like me as far as I can tell! Even apologia now seeks rather to "restore america to the Constitution" somehow as if that is similar to restoring America to the Bible directly. And even if I had a following, there's no available land in the world! Where can we establish ourselves? Antarctica? I'm certain God would bless his faithful with abundance even there... but the means by which such a Christian nation would be established are so overwhelmingly wild in my mind, and my heart so discouraged by the apparent lack of people interested in God's standards of justice, that I struggle to see how any such place could come into existence.

Wait wait wait... let's examine that commandment given to the apostles again: "Go and make disciples of all nations." What if the progress of the Christian church is not just to make disciples of groups of people, but to take secular nations and establish such a large group of believers there that they conform to God's law because of the people's desire to submit to God? After all, any true believer will acknowledge that God is just, and so isn't it natural that Christians will love God's law and seek to conform our civil laws to its statutes?

The conclusion is, in fact, that we are already at war with the rulers and authorities -- the government -- of the land we live in, but it isn't a war with flesh and blood, and we fight not with weapons of this world. On the contrary, our weapons have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. And we will be ready to punish every act of disobedience, once our obedience is complete. (Ephesians 6:10-16; 2 Corinthians 10:4-6)

That path to achieving civil justice feels much further out of my reach, because my life is surely too short to see so many people converted and a nation become established in that way... it's much more easy to imagine the Christian Nation coming into existence slowly.

Then again, in scripture we regularly see God accomplishing the impossible by means of the unexpected:
God promises to make Abraham a great nation, and fulfills it by giving him a single son in his old age; God saves many nations by making an imprisoned slave into a king overnight; God rescues a trapped Israel by putting a tornado of fire behind them and parting the sea in front of them; God brings down the high court of the philistines by strengthening a slave whose eyes had been gouged out; God saves exiled Israel from genocide by revealing that the queen of Persia herself came from Israel; God brings the Messiah into a cursed royal bloodline by means of a virgin birth;

God infuriates all Israel by healing their sick; God wins the battle by dying; God proves his ultimate supremacy by simply being alive.

Perhaps God will establish justice in our land during my lifetime.... How I hope and long for it.

"Your kingdom come. Your will be done on earth, as it is in heaven."

Alright! Time to talk about blasphemy and free speech. In my previous blog we looked at the nature of Treason, and what little activity can instigate accusations of treason in the United States. Today, I first want to briefly tack on to my previous post some information about freedom of speech in the U.S., then I will say a little about the Christian worldview background for this post, and then I'll dig into some passages from scripture.

Lots of people like to complain that we're losing our right to free speech in the U.S.. While it's true that police enforcement sometimes either ignores or is ignorant of the nature of our rights (link), the fact is, the Supreme court still recognizes that the speech which needs protecting most is the speech we hate (another link). Unfortunately, that's not how universities in the U.S. seem to see things (another link). I can only imagine that the establishment of "free speech zones" and "safe spaces" are a result of popular opinions about hate speech.

Last thing before I get into the verses, let me give some Biblical worldview-background for the topic:

Christians believe that there is a fate much worse than anything that can happen while we are alive in the flesh, and much worse than any death we may experience thereof. The worst possible thing that can ever happen to anyone is that they be sent to hell. Hell being real, and the Kingdom of God being the nation to which believers first owe allegiance, we find ourselves in a literal war against all false gods. If someone leads a man away from Christianity, then that man is a casualty of the worst kind. It is better for a man to die a martyr than for him to leave Christianity, because those who die apart from Christ get hell. (Point of order: Christians can't martyr other Christians.)

That shouldn't be shocking to anyone. It's no secret that this is what Christians believe, and Christians still make up more than 1/3 of the population of the U.S. (indeed, nearly 1/3 of the population of the whole world is Christian). Side note: Bernie Sanders made a hilarious fool of himself when he pretended that Christianity was un-American (the video).

So, on to the Biblical laws themselves. There are four kinds of speech against which God imposes civil law; all others are ignored by the law (and, by extension, all others are protected from civil sanction). As we get into this, ask yourself, "Do I really believe what the Bible says about hell and our war with the devil?" and "Is God just?"

The first civil law is about bearing false witness in court; I mention it here only to complete the list of laws about speech. If someone is falsely accused in court, then the false witness receives the penalty that the defendant would have received if he was found guilty (Deut 19:16-19). We try to do something similar with our laws about lying under oath; only the penalty isn't anywhere near as scary.

The other three laws are about blasphemy, proselytizing for false gods, and false prophesy, which I argue are the spiritual equivalents to our laws about treason. Treason is to aid the enemies of America; blasphemy and proselytizing for false gods aids the enemies of humanity and of the Kingdom of God. Christians, remember that you are first citizens of the Kingdom of God.

Blasphemy is discussed in Matthew 12:31, Mark 3:28-29, Luke 12:10, and Leviticus 24. Leviticus is the only one of these verses which talks about the civil implications of the law, and the penalty is death. The rule is straight-forward; anyone who blasphemes the Name (YHWH) is put to death. It makes sense, given that Christians are defined by their love for God; this is almost identical to proselytizing for false gods.

Proselytizing is discussed in Deuteronomy 13:6-18, and again, the penalty is death. Note, though, that there are two specific cases given here. The first is where an Israelite calls people to go after other gods, and the second is where an entire town rejects God.

In the first case, if an Israelite calls people after other gods, then it can only mean that he was an Israelite at the time when he called them after other gods. That is to say, since we know that Israel is composed of the children of the promise (Romans 9:6-9), this is a citizen of God's kingdom who performs the proselytizing for other gods. There is no law restricting foreigners (non-believers) from proselytizing, unless they are very successful. In the same way, America doesn't execute emissaries from their enemies as soon as they set-foot on American soil.

However, in the second case, it only says "if you hear that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led people of their town astray, saying 'let us go and worship other gods' (gods you have not known)". The troublemakers are not identified as either Israelite or non-Israelite. Thus, this law applies if foreigners are the troublemakers, but it only applies if the town follows after them. The town is viewed as an invasive force or a cessation from the Union. America rolled tanks over Waco when they tried to declare independence, and that's pretty much exactly what the Bible is calling for. Once a town identifies as Christian, it is a part of the Kingdom, and the law enforces that it should remain Christian. That said, I don't see any injunction in here to hunt down people who flee the city prior to this siege; I imagine that a good Israelite would flee the town as soon as they saw it begin to turn away from God in a big way.

The last law pertains to false prophets. Relevant passages can be found in Deut 12, Jer 23, Jer 29, and Ezek 13. Again, this is a straight-forward law. The prophet comes, claiming to be an Israelite, but calling Israel after false gods. The civil penalty is death.

Laws against treason protect the lives of American citizens, and they protect the American nation from falling apart due to internal division and disunity. The laws against blasphemy and proselytizing after false gods protect the eternal souls of Christians, and they protect the Christian nation from falling apart due to internal division (on non-adiaphoral issues mind you) and disunity.

That's it!

"That book doesn't describe anything."