Contemporary Dominionists are using the Thomistic concept of Ordo Amoris in order to justify their nationalism - which is idolatry. Since Vance made his statements, there have been a rash of articles offering support and praise for both him and the concept - many of them issued from Reformed pens.
While Christians are exhorted to do good and especially to those of the household of faith (Galatians 6.10), the entire argument (as framed by Vance and his allies) falls flat. As strangers and pilgrims we are by implication not to exhibit affection for nation or tribe. The gospel separates us and makes the unbelievers into those who are outside - as Paul argues in 1 Corinthians 5. By inserting nation (or tribe) into the order or hierarchy of loves (or commitments) they do err. There's no basis for it being there in the first place.
Vance clearly speaks in terms of tribe - which can only mean Christian and probably White Christian at that, which some may say is ironic given his wife on Indian origin. I think with some of these folks the issue isn't minorities being present on American soil but the fact that they should be (by their estimation) second-class citizens.
If the Biblical ordering of love doesn't include nation (in any sense), we can also safely say it does not include race. Christians regardless of race are our 'people', our 'tribe' as it were. Our only loyalty is to Zion. Anything else is cosmic treason and that would include confusing nation or even geopolitical/cultural bloc with Zion. As such Christian Nationalism or 'Christian America' are oxymorons and to be condemned as is the very concept of Christendom - which historically led to things like the Inquisition, the Crusades, and later imperialism and colonialism. Vance and his allies are advocating heresy. This literally posits a corrupt view of the Kingdom and an alternate set of ethics that subvert Scripture.
The Mother Jones article also sites Joel Webbon who is among those now openly flirting with White Nationalism, Holocaust revisionism and in some cases Hitler admiration. The Trump era has given a real boost to these types as well as other fascistic organisations like the John Birch Society.
This loyalty and love for nation they speak of has no basis in the New Testament. We can get sidetracked over questions of whether the United States is an ideological or tribal confederation/republic, but this is a waste of time. Regardless of what it is or pretends to be - we are not part of it in any kind of essential way. We render to Caesar his coin and obey the laws of the land, but that's it. We are not to be loyal or devoted. Paul pulls out his 'citizen' trump card in order to avoid torture, or to be handed over to the Jews, but he never exhorts the Church to take an active 'citizens' role in their social conduct. We are not seeking the betterment of Rome and Babylon, but we pray for its peace, understanding that the powers that be are ordained of God - and even a wicked Roman/Babylonian government is better than anarchy which leads to chaos, warlordism, and gangsterism. We don't work for political change and we don't side with revolution. Our battles are of a completely different nature. What a pity that so many Christians fail to grasp this and end up being tools of the Adversary - moved about like pawns at the behest of the Dragon.
And so when it comes to something like immigration, the proper response is outside the boundaries of political discourse. We expect Rome and Babylon to guard their borders and pursue those who generate internal instability. Now whether these modern migrants are doing that is another question.
Regardless - we let Caesar worry about his own blood-soaked and stolen borders. Whether they stand or fall is largely immaterial to us. We're not looking for standing or status in this society. It's a wicked order and it follows that those who prosper in it - are of it. Sadly that includes most of the American Church.
So let Rome pursue its policies. But we don't support them or cheer them on. We don't demand them on the basis of our own flourishing. We don't want to see others suffer. And if we're not ignorant, we understand why they come here and what the American Empire has done in many cases to break and destabilize their societies. People are looking for security and many are seeking prosperity as the possibilities for it have been wrecked in their own lands due to wars, corporate policies, corruption, and changing climate. Washington's and Wall Street's fingerprints are everywhere and so while they were despitefully used in the past they are now despised when they dare cross the imperial frontier seeking security, income, and hope.
Will I become an activist in trying to help them - petitioning the state for 'sanctuary' status and the like? No, I see no basis for doing that.
But if I encounter immigrants who need help - will I help them? Will I give them food or a ride? I certainly will - even if it's illegal. The commands of the New Testament are clear and I'm not going to allow some philosophically driven, exegetically vacuous, politicized scholastic argument made by a mammon-corrupted theologian tell me otherwise.
The advocates of Ordo Amoris are out of order in their love. They have placed the idol of nation above their Kingdom obligations. Some are using it to justify their racism - which is waxing bold, especially in some of their circles. I've noticed some Reformed folks seem surprised by this and suggest such a thing has no place in their theology or tradition to which I say - they don't know their own history. They are (it would seem) unfamiliar with pro-slavery figures like Thornwell and Dabney, and they seemingly have failed to notice contemporaries like Wilkins and Wilson who defend race-based chattel slavery and advocate for the Confederacy. It's worth noting that Wilson published Wolfe's Christian Nationalist work. Wolfe now (more openly) espouses Nazi-friendly ideology which has caused some to question him. It was actually there all along.
We could also point to the Afrikaner Calvinism of South Africa which itself was highly influenced by the Dutch Reformed thought of Abraham Kuyper. And then we would be remiss if we didn't mention RJ Rushdoony whose writings testify to his racist views and Holocaust denial.
We need to also say that as Christians we love our families - and yet our true family is the Church - and that family comes first, even above unbelieving members of our biological family. Christ made that abundantly clear in Luke 14. The argument that your larger family is your tribe gets traction in terms of sociological argument but the New Testament defines things differently. Even the lost will love their families - we're called to something higher. We're called to love our neighbour and to love our enemies. This effectively ends the debate.
Like the misguided doctrine of Vocation, the introduction of a hierarchy of loves also creates a hierarchy of ethics. So while you love your neighbour and your enemy as a Christian on Sunday - on Monday morning you put on your badge and gun and throw people to the ground, chain them, and put them in cages - or perhaps bomb them, or steal their resources while wearing a jacket and tie sitting at a computer. Divided loyalties produce divided ethics. Once again (and this is really astounding) the teacher and leader in the New Testament the modern Dominionists are most at odds with, is Christ Himself. The Sermon on the Mount refutes not only the specifics of their arguments, assumptions, and ethics - it posits an ethos that is foreign to them and tends to generate vitriol and even violence in response. It's both startling and telling. They literally hate the Kingdom doctrines and ethics of Christ - and if they really understood, the entire New Testament. They have misread the Bible on a massive scale and are advocates of an apostate form of Christianity.
The social and political questions that drive Dominionists are not questions the New Testament asks. And why not? It has completely different assumptions that invalidate these questions and the philosophically-driven theological method they employ to tease out these doctrines - which result in their distorted and tortured ethics and applications. These in turn generate new questions and the wretched cycle starts over again.
I've included some rather egregious examples of pro-Vance articles (and Scripture twisting) found in the Reformed sphere. Since I disagree with them I no doubt would be counted by them as 'on the Left'. They are (sadly) cases of glorying in what is in fact an episode of shame and in some cases their misguided thinking (boasting about the 2nd Amendment and Stonewall Jackson) is on full and tragic display. I reject them, pity them, and tremble for them and those they shepherd.
See also:
https://truthscript.com/theology/have-you-googled-ordo-amoris-yet/
https://truthscript.com/theology/what-in-the-world-is-the-ordo-amoris/
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.