The Christian Right in Europe, Book Recommendations, and a Case of Confused Worldview

https://cne.news/article/4772-seven-books-to-sharpen-your-christian-worldview

The article's set-up leads me to believe that once again the evocation of 'worldview' is not in the sense of a comprehensive and coherent system of thought but rather the rubber-stamping of an agenda. As such, it is in keeping with its frequent use within American Evangelicalism.

One would think or hope that one component of worldviewism would be honesty but I found myself having doubts from the opening sentence as many on the Right do not actually believe in democracy, human dignity, or the rule of law. They believe in these things only insofar as they are compatible with their agenda or provide a kind of rhetorical supplement or moral validation. They're a means to an end, the end of which is victory and cultural conquest.

In the United States these principles associated with Classical Liberalism have been all but abandoned by the GOP and the Trumpite movement - even while they proclaim to adhere to them. The same might be true of Fidesz in Hungary or the agenda of a party like Vox in Spain.

I have not read the Joe Boot work in question but I'm familiar with him and his ideas. He promotes Dominionism and something bordering on Theonomy. Western civilisation is basically the Kingdom of God and this too would imply an endorsement of Christendom. But if these basic notions are wrong, confused, and without Biblical warrant, his larger set of concepts quickly collapses as does his interpretation of Western history. Without reading it I can already tell the whole thing is an exercise in question begging - a house of cards that quickly collapses once a couple of foundational elements is removed. Boot is a rising star in conservative Christian circles within the UK - and increasingly beyond. His popularity is not difficult to fathom. He tickles ears and spurs people on to fleshly indulgence in terms of the sword and the coin. Seek wealth and power in order to change the world for Christ. It's an appealing message to confused Christians and the many lost people inhabiting Evangelical churches. Unfortunately that's not the message of the New Testament nor is it how God reveals His Kingdom. It's not in keeping with its nature nor is it the means by which it grows. Christ and the apostles are clear on this point and contrary to Abraham Kuyper (and Boot), there's nothing to suggest the Holy Spirit works through these means.

It's more than a little tragic, but the Western Civilisation that Boot celebrates (along with the British Empire) is a tale of apostasy and atrocity.

Tom Holland's Dominion is based on a bad reading of history. The West has been nothing less than brutal. In some respects I think pseudo-Christianity is probably more dangerous and destructive than paganism. During the Roman Catholic dominated centuries the dominating power structure of the Christian West operated as a totalitarian state in which a misguided whisper could result in torture and execution. The very idea of Dominion is a perversion of the New Testament and what it reveals about redemptive-history, the Fall, and the eschatological nature and expectation of the Kingdom and the Church. Contrary to the Kingdom revealed in the New Testament (and the faith message and examples of Hebrews 11) it's a story of avaricious heresy-driven crusade, inquisition, colonialism, empire, and industrialisation - and technological weapons that have unleashed nightmares. It's not a Christian story and the many values and notions taken for granted today such as expressed in the American and French Revolutions were inspired to a great extent by ancient Greece and Rome, along with no small dose of Enlightenment philosophy. The Christianity that was embraced was limited to the portions compatible with or in service to their larger set of social and revolutionary ideals. Holland's work has been widely criticised by historians. I would like to see more Christian historians step up and challenge such works.

The third recommendation is Abraham Kuyper's Lectures on Calvinism delivered at Princeton in 1898. As a young Christian I was constantly hearing Kuyper invoked and praised and it was with high expectation that I picked up this book back in 1998 - being the centennial it was often referenced. I was not only extremely disappointed by Kuyper's shallow and distorted reading of history. These lectures effectively destroyed his credibility (in my book) and I view it as an early watershed in my shift away from not just Dominionist-type thinking to which I was already disinclined, but many of the narratives within the Reformed sphere that are taken for granted. The lectures are celebrated, but other historians have pointed out that he's guilty in great leaps of logic, the imposition of ideas and idealism that are without warrant, and the manipulation of the history itself. Kuyper's anti-revolutionary political platform in the Netherlands (and the occasion to lecture at Princeton) meant that it was critical that he find a separation between the American and French Revolutions and as such he heavily relied on Edmund Burke. But like Burke, his analysis is flawed and fails to take into account the ways in which the French Revolution migrated and necessarily (due to its home-country context) would face issues that the American colonists would not. Confusion is a word that often comes to mind when I think of Abraham Kuyper, his theology, and his interaction with politics and culture. While Common Grace is a valid concept, a case can be made that Kuyper's views are in fact heretical. I say this as one who is not in league with or a fan of Herman Hoeksema's Protestant Reformed denomination. Even a blind squirrel gets an acorn every once in a while.

I have not read the Mangalwadi book but the summary alone sends up numerous red flags. Once again I would contend that the celebrated post-Constantinian West is a story of Biblical infidelity and Biblical rejection. It has throughout all its history been characterized by corruption. I'm not sure what books this author has been reading but he clearly has some kind of romanticised notion of what the West is. All I can say is the leaders of the Raj would have loved an author like this - one who would reinforce their exploitative thieving and murderous order.

Is he that unfamiliar with his own history to think that Indian civilization hasn't wrestled with rationality or morality? Are Indian beliefs and values monolithic? The very fact that a modern state like India exists cannot be viewed apart from its colonization at Western hands. Does he think Indian society is not still wrestling with aspects of this? Has he forgotten the tragedy of Partition?

I am not for a moment attempting to blame the ills of Indian society entirely on the British or the West in general. But he's making awfully big and sweeping claims with regard to very complex questions. I know the answers will resonate with a bloc that wants to hear them but honesty demands a bit more.

I'm baffled by the 'languages' statement in reference to the Bible. In terms of the university and science one could just easily point to idolatrous tendencies on the part of Western Christianity when it comes to the seeking of knowledge and epistemology. Science in some respects was brought on by the epistemological crisis that emerged with the breaking of a unified Christendom and the shattering of its epistemological consensus. And yet the tensions quickly emerged and are with us today. There are philosophical commitments at work within scientific exploration that were bound to ultimately bring it into conflict with revelational epistemology. The two cannot be reconciled without one or the other being degraded and subjugated.

I have not read the book but I have to say just a quick read of these paragraphs is enough to discourage me. I find it hard (in light of such claims) to take the author seriously. After spending some time on his website, perusing articles, and other books - this feeling is amplified. I find a lot of dubious and highly selective and romanticised historical claims and an an almost American Evangelical style that lends itself to sensationalism and a desire for publicity.

The Perks book on the politics of God and man is yet another Kuyperian offering. The New Testament has a great deal to say about politics - it rejects Christian participation in them. The Church rejects the sword and the coin and the world's Babel project. In particular it rejects Kuyper's notions of Common Grace which equate the Kingdom with culture and civilisation - a Kingdom built by both believer and unbeliever. The end result is (to use my oft appealed to illustration) the Tower of Babel with a cross on top - a counterfeit Kingdom, the very kind of antichrist paradigm we're warned against.

One will find in such works a very selective and self-serving use of Scripture - and probably very little of it. The Old Testament does not support democracy or modern Right-wing libertarian paradigms of statecraft. The New Testament completely rejects the cherished notions personal freedom, rights, nationalism, and mammonism - the West's real god, something all these intellectuals seem to miss.

While humanistic models can lead to totalitarianism, so can the pseudo-theocratic and sacralist models of so-called Christian statecraft. The Roman Catholic Church lorded over a centuries-long totalitarian order and not a few Protestant groups attempted something much the same. Historically the liberty that thinkers like Perks seem to celebrate appeared with the dismantling of Christendom. The problems that arise in addressing all these questions are complex but the answer is actually quite simple if unsatisfying to these thinkers. There is no solution in this present evil age. The dismantling of Christendom was a good thing as it was a bogus and unbiblical concept. The problem is whatever replaces it will quickly go rotten and then something else comes along, and then something else. We would do well to put no confidence in princes.

Now we have Christians wistfully looking for a return of Christendom but the one they seek is about as real as Tolkien's Shire. Even if it were to 'work' (whatever that means), it wouldn't work for long and this is not addressing the Biblical propriety of what they propose.

The Perks work undoubtedly contains some more stimulating discussion but it's also largely a case of begging the question. The Kuyperian project is erroneous and needs to be dispensed with.

This brings us to the work of the Theonomist RJ Rushdoony and his volume on historiography. I've read a fair bit of Rushdoony but am not familiar with this work. I can only say this - his movement is notorious for their appropriation and hijacking of Cornelius Van Til's presuppositionalism. Rushdoony's historical analysis is on display in his other works such as his Institutes and I immediately think of the numerous talks I've listened to. I would advise all Christians to avoid the works of this man. He is guilty of misreading the Bible on a massive scale and his rather distorted views play out in his historical and cultural commentary which is problematic and often contrary to the extant and documented record.

The inclusion of Rushdoony on this list means one of two things...

Either the CNE (Christian Network Europe) has played its hand and is in fact a Theonomic Reconstructionist organisation - a point that needs to be explained to people, for many (I'm sure) are unaware of the larger package they're signing on to.

Or, they are way out of their league and are actually at a foundational level unfamiliar with the kind of works they're promoting. It should also be noted that Rushdoony is a Holocaust denier and racist.

The final work is Weber's famed volume on Protestantism and Capitalism, a much discussed book that is not without some serious historical flaws. That said, the issue is not whether or not Protestantism paved the way for modern Western Capitalism but as to whether or not this was in keeping with Scripture. One need not be a socialist to say that Western Capitalism is highly incompatible with New Testament ethics and therefore the Magisterial Protestant record (in connection to this point) is not one of Biblical reform but deviation. On this point, I'm sorry to say but Rome probably has a better record and certainly a broader theological scope that allows for some nuance.

There is a mistaken notion that worldly prosperity is (or indeed can be) somehow connected to godliness and Biblical fidelity. The New Testament says otherwise. The Middle Class values of security and respectability are not Christian and ironically it is in Catholic countries like Italy and Ireland that one finds deeper traditional roots and a sense of family life. I would pick these places to live any day over England or Scotland. The same is true of Bavaria vs. the parts of Germany that used to be Prussia - the areas most associated with Protestantism. And though it defies Western understanding, the poorer countries of the world are often the happiest with a stronger sense of community. Weber's analysis is interesting at points but ultimately wrong and certainly the Christianity he speaks of is less than Biblical.

This a terrible list and one that will produce a result in stark contrast to what it purports to promote. The reading of these recommended books and the adoption of their ideology are a sure and quick path to destroying Biblical thinking. For that matter the entire worldview concept is itself highly problematic and represents something of a rejection of Scriptural Sufficiency. This effectively undermines not only claims of Sola Scriptura but will ultimately lead to a relegation of Scripture - making it but one factor among many in the formation of a comprehensive philosophical and cultural system that is not judged on the basis of exegesis but of coherence and results. I find it so striking that Worldviewism with its Continental philosophical roots has been adopted by Anglo-American thinkers and yet it shouldn't surprise us that more often than not, it's really just an intellectual front for good old American Pragmatism - and increasingly appeals to Common Sense. This latter notion which very Anglo-American, is at odds with the epistemological roots of worldview-ism.

It is discouraging to see this American-style Dominionism continuing to spread, but again as it tickles ears it's not unexpected. Rather than call Christians to take up the cross and lay up treasures in heaven, this misguided ideology validates worldly and middle class values, encourages Christians to seek wealth and power - by various means. This road leads to a corruption and abandonment of Christian ethics. Discernment itself is corrupted and these people end up seeking a kingdom other than Zion.

A review of this list is sobering to say the least and I tremble at the thought of how many people might take it up and (inspired by its false promises), will waste many hours of their lives sowing seeds of confusion in their minds and hearts. These are not books to read but books to avoid and condemn.