Finnish MP Paivi Rasanen's speech at the General Assembly of the Spanish Evangelical Alliance

https://evangelicalfocus.com/features/16010/for-the-christians-the-bible-is-the-word-of-god-and-we-must-have-the-possibility-to-agree-with-it

As many readers will already know Paivi Rasanen is the Finnish MP who has been brought up on charges regarding her anti-homosexual stand and public statements she has made to that end. Her trial is complete and if found guilty she faces jail time. It signals a real warning to Christians in the West that the Sodomite factions that have come to dominate large sections of Western capitalist society intend to prosecute dissidents.

And yet there are real problems with her arguments. She suggests that it is necessary, indeed we must have the 'possibility' of agreeing with the Word of God. In other words, society must remain broad enough in its plurality that Christians can (in the public square) argue the positions of Christian ethics –whatever that happens to mean. I say this because not all would agree on just what they are. Rasanen herself and her Lausanne Movement allies are (I would argue) somewhat confused on these points.

The possibility of agreeing with the Word of God is a seemingly innocuous statement and yet it's problematic. Theonomists and the more extreme thinkers within the Dominionist spectrum would take exception to her words. A mere place at the table isn't enough for them. Christians (they argue) need to dominate society and hold its reins.

I would argue (along with the New Testament and contrary to Theonomy and Rasanen) for the other extreme. We're not seeking a society that grants us the 'possibility' of agreeing with God's Word. This is a wrong-headed approach and in actuality is meant to stimulate the Evangelical community toward greater political action – in order to maintain this 'place at the table' as it were.

On the contrary, we simply follow God's Word, proclaim it and accept whatever context Providence has placed us in. We don't seek the permission of the state or any kind of status it may grant. We neither want its sanction or protection nor do we invite persecution. Regardless we will pursue our divine mission. Understand what I mean when I say this – we don't care. We go about our business. We don't want a place at the table. If they persecute us then fine. We suffer to the glory of God or if need be we flee.

It's much easier to do when we're not invested in the larger society. Evangelicalism is certainly invested and therefore cannot follow through on New Testament teachings – in fact it must reject them and does so at multiple points.

Romans teaches us that the powers that be are ordained by God. Evangelicals quote this to their own ends but they don't actually believe it. If it is God's Providential decree that Finland is to be handed over to Sodomites and their apostate allies then so be it. Keep preaching and living the gospel. If you're in danger of having your kids taken or something along those lines then leave. For Christians living there – need they be reminded that Finland is not your home. This is regardless of whether or not you are a Finn in terms of ancestry and culture.

Rasanen wants Christian norms for culture but this cannot be. It never has been. The so-called Christian consensus in the West was always founded upon a compromised and syncretistic Christianity that held to some New Testament notions but found a way to combine these with the sword and the coin – not to mention the flag. We are not impressed by watered-down generic statements made by politicians. Students of the New Testament will know all of these things represent fatal compromises and thus it's not too surprising that we're witnessing chaos and confusion in the Church – even in ostensibly conservative circles.  

Evangelicals worry about compromise but their movement is rooted in compromise – the necessary capitulations required to run a state, attain status, and wield power in the world. Hence it's not too surprising that the great Evangelical hero of the hour is Rasanen, a female MP. This is testimony to just how far the movement has capitulated to feminism. Rasanen is therefore not really a conservative – and once again the waters are muddied. This is especially ironic as the sodomite resurgence in the West rode the feminist wave and now it's the feminists (in some cases) who are opposing it. You can't make this stuff up. It's the blind leading blind but they can convince themselves they are conservative because in the thick of the cultural fight their vision is obscured and they don't realise the other side keeps moving the goalposts. And so today's cultural conservatives are yesterday's cultural liberals.  

And as far as the state Lutheran Church – that has been apostate for a very long time and if obedient she shouldn't be part of it anyway. The Church teaches sin and endorses it. This has been the case for decades. State Churches are not Biblical to begin with. Someone needs to ask Rasanen – why now? Where have you been for the past fifty years? Her husband takes a salary from that very apostate body. I find her standing to be questionable.

Is Rasanen facing persecution? Yes and no. It's complicated.

In one sense yes, the state (and its collaborating false church) is wicked and anti-Christian and pursuing her on those grounds.

But at the same time it's not that simple. She's an officeholder. She has wed her person to the Finnish state and wields authority and in that capacity there are contradictions between her anti-liberal views and the views of the modern liberal Finnish state and its religious whore, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland. Rasanen wants the state to bend to her and since it doesn't and she faces retribution – she calls it persecution. I don't think so.

If she was following the New Testament's social imperatives and minding her own business (as it were) and the state pursued her, that would be a clear case of persecution. But instead she is meddling in the affairs of the Finnish Babylon and so it shouldn't surprise us that Babylon is striking back. The fact that she thinks Finland is Christian testifies to her own confusion and embrace of false doctrine and ethics.

And she's not just wielding political authority. Her authority is specifically tied to law enforcement and the sensitive issue of immigration. She boasts of her Christian profession and statecraft but in order to take and wield these powers she has entered into a syncretistic relationship to the state – which is necessarily and Biblically defined as pagan.

The fog of Christendom and its many corollary false doctrines and ethics cloud this discussion and it's why the chaos perpetuates. Rasanen's speech (which in good Evangelical fashion falsely invokes Esther) only pours fuel on this already raging fire.

In one sense she faces persecution and we should all be alarmed but in another sense this is very much a form of political retribution and therefore her suffering (and potential suffering) should not be confused with persecution but instead stem from her disobedience to New Testament imperatives regarding Christians and the state as well as specifically the role of women.

Her rejection of sodomy is correct and to be commended but she is wrong in terms of her social positioning and the context of her stand. Her life testifies to her rejection of Biblical gender roles and norms as well as the ordering of marriage and the family.

The state is wrong but this is to be expected. The commands of God are foolishness to the world and the world hates the righteous doctrines of Christ's Kingdom. They would crucify Him again today. None of this should be surprising or even controversial. Once again it is the false paradigm of Christendom that overshadows this discussion and generates confusion.

Consequently nothing is being learned from this episode. Instead it will be utilised as a call to for the intensification of dominionist propaganda and activism. That is the gist of her speech. And we've already seen this story picked up by the American Right and used to stir up outrage in their (also misguided) circles.

We should also be concerned that it was delivered in the context of Spanish Evangelicalism. Spain was for so long hostile to any form of Protestantism but their culture has also experienced a significant shift which has placed the Roman Catholic Church on its back foot. Protestants would have once celebrated the demise of Roman Catholicism in Spain, but through the efforts of the Lausanne Movement and other ecumenical forces, Dominionism has provided a matrix for co-belligerence. Now Evangelicals and Catholics can work toward common cultural goals under the aegis of a generalised or watered down Christianity. It's a convenient if unprincipled alliance – and Rasanen's thinking represents this in many ways.

But in the case of Spain there are real dangers in that the door is wide open to Evangelical Dominionism finding common cause with the now resurgent forces of Fascism in Spain. Nearly fifty years after the death of Franco, the Right in Spain is rearing its head and has re-entered the political sphere. We've already seen some of these ideas embraced in the context of American politics, in Latin America, and in parts of Central Europe. It should concern us that at some point Evangelicals may seek political power hand-in-hand with the forces of the Spanish Far Right. They certainly are in these other contexts.

I hope Rasanen is exonerated and yet I am disturbed by her speech, the ideas she's invoking, and the forces she's allying with. Regardless of whether she's exonerated or incarcerated this isn't over and I am uneasy about what's around the next bend in the road.