A CREC Theonomist Cheerleading the Secretary of War

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/22/pastor-joshua-haymes-pete-hegseth

As these so-called Christians bring disgrace on the Church and sow confusion as to its testimony, we are forced to navigate these pestilential waters, decrying the errors of the heretics and the misunderstandings of the lost who in some cases criticise things they do not understand.

Former pastor Joshua Haymes is a full-time content producer, and in addition to promoting Pete Hegseth (and thus Trump) he also advocates draconian civil punishment and defends America's history of chattel slavery. Like the late Charlie Kirk, he also promotes The Great Replacement Theory and all the racist and anti-immigrant policies it entails. Haymes declares the Bible is 'pro-ICE raids'.

As far as women losing the vote, the answer to Haymes and his critics is quite simple - all Christians should voluntarily disenfranchise. What Babylonian women do is their business. We should call them to repentance at which point their lives will also change. Even when Dominionists are tangentially right on questions like this, they're wrong because they think in sacral terms and confuse the status of lost society with that of the Covenant people. The end result is Covenant status is downgraded and profaned, and confused with worldly categories.

As far as the liberal threat Haymes identifies in the article - his meaning is unclear. Some Theonomists are honest enough to admit that Classical Liberalism (the ideology of the American Founding, Declaration, and Constitution) is at odds with the Mosaic-oriented Theocracy they advocate. That's at least being honest - at which point (if they are consistent) they will dispense with all pretense of patriotism as they advocate a system which would effectively overthrow and replace the American order.

But I'm guessing Haymes is referring to the modern liberalism that is associated with left-wing politics. But even this has significantly changed meaning over the past few generations. The liberalism that emerged in the 1960's has been all but abandoned and the Democratic Party has moved far to the Right on issues such as the military, market capitalism, the American Empire, and the institutions of state such as the CIA, FBI, NATO, and others. They are now where many Republicans were in the 1970's and 1980's. The exception to this Right-ward trajectory is their embrace of Identity Politics which (as I continue to argue) is not Left-wing but rather an expression of late capitalist decadence and Liberalism gone to seed. It's individualism pushed to an extreme and has nothing to do with collective interests, social unity, or the working class. The Democrats have abandoned these principles and groups and thus they have been run over by the Trumpite populist wave.

The Republicans have moved further to the Right and many within that camp have become effective fascists - embracing the ultra-nationalism and twisted conservatism that emerged in the 1930's in places like Italy, Spain, Croatia, France, and of course Germany.

The so-called 'Extreme Left' of today - figures like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and nothing like the Far Left that emerged in the 1960's and survived into the 1970's. Rather these figures are more or less FDR-type Democrats - centrists of yesteryear but in today's DNC spectrum they constitute the 'far left'. And of course for the fascistic GOP, figures like George HW Bush, Reagan, Nixon, and maybe even George W Bush would be considered liberals. They wouldn't even make it through the primaries.

Instead of disciplining the likes of Haymes, Hegseth and his Tennessee pastor Brooks Potteiger, these men are lionised within the CREC and thus it can be inferred that denomination (as a whole) and its de facto leadership (Doug Wilson et al.) also support these positions and the celebration of these heretics. It would be a good time for believers to leave the CREC.

Regardless of who Heidi Beirich is or what she stands for he statement is correct:

“The leader of the Pentagon is in league with white supremacists, Confederacy lovers, people who want to take away women’s right to vote and slavery apologists. In earlier eras, a person with ties like that would never have reached the heights of federal power or been acceptable to the GOP.”

This is nothing new when it comes to the likes of Wilson and many others within Theonomic circles. What's salient is the fact that the GOP now accepts this kind of ideology within its ranks - and now among leading figures in the presidential administration it supports. Make no mistake, the most powerful congressman in the GOP (Mike Johnson) is fully supportive of Hegseth, Trump, and the whole agenda. In fact he's sold his soul and abandoned any kind of principle or adherence to law in order to further the cause. A deceived deceiver (2 Timothy 3.13), he thinks he's living according to a Biblical Worldview. In fact, he's taken the deal Satan offered to Christ in the Temptation. Like all who have fallen into this trap, he has a form of godliness but denies the power thereof.

Sphere Sovereignty is identified as 'radical' and the article proceeds to (at least in part) misdefine it. This is not to say that the overall explanation of their agenda - the capturing of society and its subjugation to (what they think is) Biblical Law. Unfortunately, their vision is actually at odds with both the Old and New Testaments. Failing to grasp typology, they misapply the Mosaic Law to non-covenantal contexts and thus destroy and secularize the Christocentric typology that defines it - the types that were fulfilled and thus disannulled by the advent of the New Covenant. These men are Judaizers - who promote a permutation of the Galatian error, who also fall afoul of the sundry warnings issued in the Epistle to the Hebrews.

And though Sphere Sovereignty is wrongly defined, we can also state that Kuyper's teaching on that topic was also in error.

The lost authors and editors at The Guardian will not be capable of understanding this or navigating these waters. However, they are correct in understanding that what the Dominionists advocate is at odds with American Constitutionalism and thus works to subvert American law, custom, and legal tradition. Their attempt to make America 'great' is in fact an attempt to overthrow and replace the American order with something completely different. Thus (whether one agrees with the American order or not) these men are effectively revolutionaries, rebels, and saboteurs. American patriots (which would not include Christians) would be within their rights to view them as traitors. We Christians also view them as traitors. Whether they are to America or not is of little concern to us. The treason we object to is their betrayal of Christ's Kingdom and their attempt to replace it with Babel.

The article correctly labels Postmillennialism - that is at the very heart of CREC identity. If you understand the magnitude of this error, it would preclude any New Testament-minded Christian from having anything to do with this faction.

Haymes like others within the CREC (and the larger sphere of Evangelicalism) frequently choose to gloss over the sins of their celebrity heroes. Hegseth's history is pretty dark, with allegations of war crimes, multiple marriages, alcoholism, rape, and a consistent advocacy for other war criminals and murderers. He's a morally degenerate idolater and heretic and consistently demonstrates not only a lack of repentance, but a kind of defiance and a willingness to lie with abandon. It's the same kind of sociopathic behaviour seen with someone like Trump. The fact that the CREC tolerates these people, demonstrates that it has no concept of the gospel, Kingdom, or even something as basic as church discipline. In other words it's a farce and is quickly becoming the repository of all the filth that exists on the fringes of Reformed Christianity.

In a telling quote, Haymes states:

“The Bible does not require wealthy Christian nations to self-immolate for the horrible crime of having a flourishing economy and way of life, all right? The Bible does not permit the civil magistrate to steal money from its citizens to pay for foreign nationals to come destroy our culture.”

There's a lot of question begging here.... wealthy Christian nations? The term 'Christian' is incompatible with these concepts. He ignores the true nature of America's flourishing economy and way of life, as well as the godless, exploitative, and often violent way in which this sick, decadent, and consumerist culture has come about. He confuses taxation with theft - ignoring the fact that Paul tells the Romans to pay their taxes knowing full well that Nero would use the revenue to fund the legions, build pagan temples, finance games, and much else that was wicked. Haymes is twisting Scripture and he begs the question regarding foreign nationals - who says they are here to destroy American culture? Further he confuses pronouns - 'our' (as he uses it) would apply to American culture and should never be confused with the interests and ethics of the Church. Haymes (like so many Theonomic Postmillennialists) is a poor exegete, and unqualified to teach Scripture as he is ignorant of its basic teachings. It seems to be par for the course when it comes to the CREC.
Red pill indeed.

He adds to these distorted claims a distinct racial element - as he wishes to protect Anglo-Protestant culture.

Tim Whitaker is correct that this teaching is equivalent to what the KKK has long advocated. The framing is the same and it's also reminiscent of what is found in circles such as the John Birch Society.

Why isn't Haymes being called out for these lies by figures within the CREC - or for that matter within the larger fold of Reformed Christianity? They'll certainly call out anyone they think is advocating Leftist views - whether they actually are or not.

The notion that liberals are deliberately bringing minorities into the country to subvert elections is a detestable lie - and it matches the ideology of someone like Anders Breivik, the mass killer who shot up Utoya. Have figures like Haymes given that any thought considering the mass shooting culture in the United States? Do figures like Haymes care nothing about the fact that the Buffalo, El Paso, Christchurch, and Pittsburgh shootings were inspired by this Great Replacement ideology - let alone the 2019 Poway Synagogue shooting in which the perpetrator was a 19-year old member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, one of the more conservative Confessional Reformed bodies in the United States?

It is undoubtedly true that the term Anti-Semitic has become confused. Dispensationalists accuse non-Dispensationalists of being Anti-Semitic. Those who reject Zionism, Kahanism, and the politics of Likud are called Anti-Semitic, even though many of the most vocal critics of these movements are fellow Jews. There are also Enlightenment-rooted Liberals, and confused historians that associate New Testament teaching and doctrine (vis-a-vis the Jews) with Anti-Semitism. And they're wrong to do so. And yet, there's also a case to be made of Anti-Semitism being associated with post-Constantine Christendom. However these same secular critics are unable to understand that while Christendom came to dominate and thus can make a historical claim to being legitimate Christianity - it (and its historical Anti-Semitism) nevertheless represents a defection from Biblical teaching. Due to this understanding, they are alarmed by talk of all peoples (such as Muslims and Jews) having to bow before Christ. This is in reference to the Final Judgment - a truth which many will regardless find offensive. But given the confused and often over-realized eschatology associated with Postmillennialists, there is cause for concern as they have a tendency to try and force these future realities (connected to Christ's coming and judgment) into the present - and enforced by the worldly power they would wield. This leads to great evil and bloodshed and it is without Biblical warrant or sanction, flying in the face of New Testament ethics and the call to take up the cross. And these same secular critics will not understand that all Christians would oppose homosexual adoption and yet this position in no way puts us in the same category or spectrum as someone like Haymes. Such sentiments just further the confusion. And while we decry homosexuality, the New Testament nowhere commands Christians to execute its practitioners. It was certainly common enough in New Testament times and yet there is never a hint that Christians are to push for such policies. The first century Hellenistic world was pretty ugly and enveloped by immorality. The Church lived within its midst and yet never engaged in politicking or violence.

The confusion surrounding these issues is real but scoundrels like Haymes are using this fog to obscure their racism, historical revisionism, and genuine Anti-Semitism. He instead tries to deflect the issue by putting the blame on liberals (which he does not define), and insists they represent the danger. One is left wondering if the clearly muddled Haymes isn't also embracing the Right's revisionism regarding Hitler and the Nazis and their attempt to label them a Left-wing movement. But even this has gone astray as some on the Far Right are embracing the same. This has led some utterly confused commentators (such as Chris Arnzen) to create a new category to add to their already extant list of made up ideologies - this one being the 'woke right'. What utter nonsense will they come up with next? Haymes is delusional if he thinks Nazi ideology is 'non-existent in the west today.'

But as the article reveals, Haymes is not an honest player. His endorsement of Jared Taylor and other statements demonstrates where his heart is. And again, the broad picture reveals a cancerous rot at the heart of Doug Wilson's movement. He is quietly endorsing numerous people that are involved in evil and its espousal. To call him a mere fellow traveller is being charitable.

The CREC has been denounced by many Confessionalists for its promotion of Federal Vision Theology - something Wilson has attempted to distance himself from. For my part, there is much within Federal Vision that I can agree with and I think many modern Confessionalists have embraced 19th century categories and modes of theologizing that are in fact at odds with their own Confessional professions. While many of these folks denounce the CREC for these reasons related to soteriology and ecclesiology, they fall silent on these questions of ethics, eschatology, redemptive-history, and Dominionism. This is to their shame.