Recent Dominionist Efforts in the UK

https://christianconcern.com/comment/the-mission-of-god-includes-politics/

Reading the summaries of this conference, I'm left shaking my head - more distractions, more confusion. The New Testament knows nothing of what they're talking about. They are cherry picking a few texts and reading a lot of assumptions into them.

Christ is King - His Kingdom is not of the world. It's heavenly, it's eschatological. The Church proclaims the gospel which is also a proclamation of doom and coming judgment. But the kingdoms of this world cannot be Christianized - the concept itself is problematic and extra-scriptural. This present age is described as evil and under the god of this world - something that will not change before the Parousia. The Adversary's defeat is certain - the resurrection declared that, which we celebrate when partake of the Lord's Supper or through the union declared in baptism wherein we participate in his death and resurrection.

But there's no basis for Christian politicking. Quite the opposite. We're called to work quietly, not entangle ourselves in the affairs of this life, mind our own business, pray for kings to leave us alone, and leave judgment of those who are outside the Church to God alone and His Providence.

This drive toward meddling and power just distracts the Church and causes it to lose its way. The dominant place given to feminism (a la Andrea Williams) just further testifies to this confusion.

King Alfred is not a model. Such Christianization schemes are bogus. I expect the lost of the world to guard their lands and treasures. And what were the Anglo-Saxons but pirates and conquerors who stole the land from the Romans who in turn stole it from the Britons who came before? And of course later their kingdoms were stolen by Vikings and Normans. The world is no different today other than the entities involved often become more nebulous and decentralised.

We're supposed to admire a man who based his power on coerced military participation by his subjects and the demand to build fortresses? This exhibits a kind of worldly wisdom - as if England is an end in itself. But if it's not - and despite all the romanticisation it's not, then what kind of Christian ethics did Alfred stand for? He didn't.

Now in terms of Providence, he played his part, but that's not the same as God's sanction and blessing, nor does it mean that Christendom is valid or that England or any other nation in the New Covenant era has any claim to covenant or sanctified status.

The Doom Book was based on hermeneutical error and should be rejected as Judaizing, if not guilty of a kind of tribal-nationalist heresy. It's history and should be studied but if we apply the authority of the New Testament the result to the Doom Book is clear - it should not be emulated.

As far as his ecclesiology, what is Alfred's model but the same kind of corrupt Investiture and domination see elsewhere throughout so-called Christendom? It's simply a fusion of Church and state - tying the Church in with English identity. These are not things to celebrate. I pity those who cannot connect the current state of British Christianity with these historical precedents. They are absolutely related.

It is not my purpose to simply denigrate Alfred. There were plenty of medieval monarchs who were far worse. But we have to question the claims being made and the way these contemporary advocates of Christian politicking would use him and romanticise his legacy by appealing to coronation oaths and the like. What if such oaths were and are wrong?

One is left wondering if this contemporary appeal to Alfred et al. isn't all about Islamic immigration? It seems to always loom in the background and such historical appeals (especially if romanticised) can prove very powerful and persuasive.

As far as Boot goes, we're already familiar with his errors and gross misuse of Scripture. The summary of his talk is just more evidence of the same.

The New Testament was written in the context of the Roman Empire. Were New Testament authors concerned with Roman pluralism and the question of integration? Did they view the Church's situation in the Roman Empire as analogous to Old Testament Israel?

If the answer is 'no', then Boot has a serious problem. His talk is either meaningless or he must admit the Scriptures are insufficient for a proper understanding of the Christian life and ethics. The Church must (it would seem) move beyond Scripture and embrace philosophy and tradition - and this is what he does, especially in his question begging regarding Christian Britain (so-called). We'll leave aside the question of Britain versus England and the political context for its rise and unique identification.

Countries like Britain and America may indeed face civil war - and unfortunately it is the hyper-charged and often religious motivated advocates of Right-wing politics that are doing as much as anyone else to pour fuel on these fires.

Boot once more demonstrates that he is a blind leader of the blind. Serious students of the New Testament should be able to see right through his smoke and mirror arguments and his dog and pony show treatment of history. But unfortunately, rather than taking him as prima facie absurd, his popularity appears to be growing. People like to have their ears tickled.

I'm unfamiliar with Aaron Edwards but it's clear from this summary that he's a political activist and no exegete. This attempt to read nationalism into the Scripture is increasingly popular but erroneous. Nations exist in terms of Providence but for the Church - Babel was undone at Pentecost, a point repeatedly reinforced by the apostle in the reminder that in Christ the difference between Jew and Gentile, Greek and Scythian becomes meaningless. We all must live where we're at in terms of different geo-political contexts but our identity and loyalties are wed to Zion. Advocates of patriotism and nationalism lead the Church into error, divide loyalties, and frankly promote a type of treason that leads to judgment.

Alice Roberts may be a wicked and very deceived woman, but what does she have to do with us? We press on and the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, they're not political. We pray, worship, bear witness, and bear the cross. Britain was handed over to judgment centuries ago and if only now Christians are feeling some discomfort it's simply a testimony to how unfaithful British Christianity has been. We are pilgrims and neither Britain nor America can be called our home and they can command no loyalty or affection.

I can say that I might enjoy aspects of living in Pennsylvania and I would certainly pick some US states or European nations over others - and there are many states and nations in which I would not want to live. I appreciate the beauty of the forest and some of the interesting history (mostly Church related) connected to the state in which I reside. But the lines on the map are arbitrary - they once weren't there and someday they will be gone. And it's all in a constant state of flux anyway. My wife can look at the small town she grew up in and have some fond memories from forty years ago and more. Despite the fact that some of the buildings still stand, that town (as she knew it) no longer exists. The people are mostly gone and new people live in some of those same houses but it's no longer the same and it's constantly changing.

Would laws have kept it the same? Not a chance. The things she's thinking about are intangible and even ineffable. It's a mood, an ethos - something that you realize (years after the fact) may not have really been what you thought it was, as it was a temporary perception based on limited contact and reflection. Someone else's experience of the same may be completely different.

We'll drive through Pennsylvania or New York and enter a quaint small town and you wonder what it's like to live there? From a scenic overlook it may look picturesque and very appealing. But part of the charm is in the fact that it's unknown to you.

I can go to the same sort of overlooks and look down on the town where I live or nearby towns I know well and while the outward appearance exhibits the same quaint and charming aspects - it's different. Why? Because I know the people who live there and you know something of the 'dark side' of small town life, the scandal, the tragedy, the nastiness and cruelty. You drive through town and see people out walking and (if it's a town you know) you're more likely than not experiencing feelings other than quaintness and charm as you know the people and their stories. I suppose some still do but they've deliberately chosen to close their eyes or view everything through Pollyanna lenses.

The point is - most of this talk of nations and identity are just manipulative politicised rubbish, a kind of propaganda that Christians (who are supposed to have a very different and eternal perspective) should not fall for. But instead they do and with abandon. I blame Church leaders for failing to properly teach the Word of God. I blame deep historical errors that are constantly reinforced and rejuvenated.

As far as the Kuyper Foundation - it's very simple. Abraham Kuyper was more often than not completely wrong and if you read the New Testament, read Kuyper, and read about his life and context and what motivated him, the answer is clear - he was mistaken, confused, and misled. He misunderstood the Scriptures and history and his thinking is riddled with internal contradiction and often incoherence. Instead of being celebrated he needs to be used as an example of error - a person to learn from so that we don't fall into his same patterns of mistakes. His legacy in Dutch Reformed Christianity and the Netherlands is not a happy one - a point his contemporary champions continue to ignore.

The whole notion of the Church conquering spheres is wrong. Nowhere are we told to capture the arts or the state. Show me one verse in the New Testament that suggests this or that the apostles or Christ had this concern. I can show you dozens that demonstrate they did not and that the perspective and outlook of the New Testament is completely different.

A prophetic social order? Only by redefining the concept can this have meaning and application in terms of the modern state. How can Britain or any nation be under the Covenant of Grace? Is Britain baptised? Is it in union with Christ? These redefinitions constitute another gospel. The nature of these errors is just that serious. Until people understand this - these false teachers will continue to wax bold and as deceived deceivers lead the Church into ruin.

Unfortunately the 'Mission' these folks have given themselves to is not in service to the God of Scripture but a nationalist idol of their own making. And it's clear (at least to this author) that this idolatry has led to judgment and confusion that is leading them ever more afield.

The Church is in crisis, a point we on which I think we all can agree. The answer is not found in a pretended rollback to Victorian times or the Middle Ages. These times were fraught with their own difficulties and errors. We need to learn from the past and not repeat it. With the Scriptures in hand we can think differently and break some of these cycles of superficial growth and veneer morality, followed by decline and apostasy. What these conference speakers offer is no different, and has little to do with the religion taught by the apostles in the New Testament. Beware their leaven.