Introduction
The very first thing we should get into our heads is the fact that sauce for the goose/sauce for the gander is a basic biblical principle. The judgment with which you judge you shall be judged (Matt. 7:1-2)
“Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.”Romans 2:1 (NKJV)
Why Don’t We Get to Do What He Gets to Do?
So I would like to begin this installment by highlighting the central contradiction of this particular chapter of Disarming Leviathan. That’s correct, right out of the gate. Why mess around?
The chapter is dedicated to showing that Christian nationalism is empowered by an ancient beast, a spiritual power that offers a false security to those gullible enough to be taken in by it. It is a “rival religion” (p. 36). It is “spiritual . . . it was not God’s Spirit at work” (p. 39). It is a “supernatural power covertly at work” (p. 39). There are “spiritual undercurrents that empower it” (p. 40). “Leviathan symbolizes moral chaos” (p. 41). Christian nationalism is a “deceitful teaching,” and by his citation of 1 Tim. 4:1-2 immediately following that statement, he clearly intimates that it is demonic. The stakes are high, my friends.
But then—and you will scarcely believe this—he winds up for his concluding pitch, and it turns out to be this screwball.
“American Christian nationalists often frame anyone who does not agree with them as evil, demonic, or satanic.”
Disarming Leviathan, p. 55
So that would be bad then? I mean, how dare they? But at least they don’t say that anyone who disagrees with them about politics is Leviathan.
There are times when the only word that suffices is crikey.
This entire chapter is about the evil spiritual power that is driving the Christian nationalist movement, and he names that power as Leviathan, an ancient spiritual wickedness and enemy of God. If this were a movie and not just a book, there would be spooky music running all through it, not to mention a couple of courageous exorcists.
In the heroic narrative that Campbell has running through his mind, he is a member of the company at St. Anne’s, and all of us are over here in Belbury, sitting in the shadow of that hideous strength.
And then he tells us that one of the ways he knows that we are the bad guys is because Christian nationalists think they are up against demonic forces. But what does he think he is up against again? What is it that he wants to disarm?
So there’s that contradiction, right at the heart of this chapter. His entire point is a contradiction. One of the ways we can tell that Leviathan is bad is that he makes his lackeys accuse fellow-Christians of being governed by demons.
An Explanation is Called For
But how could someone as smart as Campbell be guilty of a howler like this? I think the answer lies in the subtitle of Thomas Sowell’s book, The Vision of the Anointed—Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy. The things that Campbell believes, he believes as manifestly self-evident. Not only are they self-evident, they are crammed full of Uplift, Sunshine, and Unicorn Tears. And when anyone has the temerity to differ with self-evidential truisms of that nature, an explanation is manifestly called for. The explanation for such perfidy has to be something really bad and . . . Leviathan is really bad.
The short form is that it is quite all right for him to say his political adversaries are demonic, but he thinks that it is simply outrageous if Christian nationalists do it.
Now of course, we have to budget for the logical possibility that somebody might be correct here. If he is right, then Christian nationalism really is demonic. It was not unfair that Jesus called His adversaries whited tombs and they didn’t get to call Him a glutton and a drunkard (Matt. 11:18-19). So there is that. But that would mean that we would also have to budget for the logical possibility that the Christian nationalists are the real resistance, and the current establishment is the real Leviathan. That would make everything doubly festive. Never forget that the generation that murdered Jesus was a demon-possessed generation (Matt. 12:43-45), and one of their favorite accusations against the Lord was that He had a demon (John 7:20). One of the things that Satanic forces do is accuse the godly of devilry.
Maybe—just maybe—the true Leviathan is the one that has devoured millions of babies, has sent Bruno into the junior high girls showers, has mutilated the sexual organs of any number of healthy kids, has placed the golden ring of holy matrimony in the snout of the Obergefellian pig, and has the effrontery to pretend that high corruption. can be called something else provided it is a deep enough blue. To be clear, I do not believe that evangelicals who voted for Harris are demonic. However, for reasons best known to themselves, they talked themselves into voting for demons.
But lest anyone accuse me of “demonizing for fun and profit,” I hasten to acknowledge that there are demons on the right also. Anyone who is a gospel-friend is going to be fighting them too, wherever we find them. As helpful as definitions and boundaries and categories are to us, we must never forget that the devil has never once respected any of them. The Lord’s Twelve had a demonic element too (Luke 22:3).
A Few Miscellaneous Things
So that was the central confusion of this chapter. But there were a few others that deserve at least a little bit of notice. I will devote a paragraph to each.
“Leviathan often recruits good people to accomplish its evil mission by presenting itself as a godly ally. In America this can be seen when influential leaders co-opt Christian rhetoric and icons, claiming to advocate for Christian values (e.g. ‘right to life,’ religious freedom) to gain money and power.”
I am particularly interested in why he put quotation marks around “right to life.” He didn’t do that with the next issue of religious freedom. The best way to read this would be as “so-called right to life.” Yeah, the slaughter of babies kind of looks like Leviathan is principally located in the pro-abortion sector, and not in the “stop killing babies” sector. Pro-lifers have the moral high ground on this one, and so it is necessary to pretend that they don’t really have the moral high ground. They are not really pro-life because they support the death penalty for violent criminals, or they have doubts about WIC programs, or they oppose minimum wage laws. Conservative Christians have gotten a lot of moral mileage out of the life issue, and so it becomes necessary to cast a little shade on it. They oppose abortion because they want “power.” Sure thing. Power to do what? Power to stop abortions. This is not complicated.
Campbell cites an advocate of Christian nationalism who argued for capitalism because the Bible says, “Thou shalt not steal.”
“The original hearers of Exodus 20:15 would have never thought about capitalism since it wasn’t yet invented. The speaker didn’t seem to care about the original intent of the text; instead, the text was ripped from its context and used to support claims about American fiscal policy.”
The point is not whether the ancient Israelites ever heard of Milton Friedman. The point being made is that respect for private property, the cornerstone of capitalism, is enshrined in the Ten Commandments. The central reason why I am not a collectivist of any stripe is that they are all systems that ignore the authority of this fundamental prohibition. When the Decalogue says “thou shalt not commit adultery,” what institution is presupposed? Correct . . . the institution of marriage. Without the institution of marriage, there is no such thing as adultery. And without the institution of private property, there is no such thing as stealing. That’s the first thing.
But I want you to remember that he appealed to the “original hearers” here, because I want to do something else with it.
“A regular practice of American Christian nationalism is to demonize people who ask critical questions about America and its history. Anyone who brings up the evils of chattel slavery, Manifest Destiny, or the Chinese Exclusion Act at a Christian nationalist gathering will be viewed with suspicion.”
First, note that this is yet another instance where he rejects demonizing people when other people demonize people. He, however, gets to demonize people. But we already covered that earlier.
Did original hearers of the Ten Commandments know anything about the Chinese Exclusion Act? No. Did they have any opinions at all concerning the doctrine of Manifest Destiny? Again, no. And did they know anything whatever about slavery? Uh . . . okay, well, I guess they did. The Ten Commandments were delivered to a slave-owning people, and this is baked into and assumed by the commandments in two places. Your slaves are to be given a sabbath rest along with everyone else (Ex. 20:10). And you were not allowed to covet your neighbor’s slaves (Ex. 20:17). And yet, Campbell brings up the evils of slavery. I will say it yet again. By what standard?
“America is a pluralistic society. It includes many different cultures bound together not by common ethnicity or heritage but by a set of political ideals (democratic republic, by the people, for the people, etc.). By design it is multicultural.”
And here we see the central problem, and it is a problem driven by a central confusion. We are, he says, a pluralistic and multicultural society. He says that this is so “by design.” Okay, I’ll bite. Whose design? When did they design it? What pattern or template were they using when they designed it? Since they Founding, has there been any redesigning?
So we are bound together, not by a common ethnicity or heritage, but rather by a set of “political ideals.” He says that the design is that of a democratic republic . . . by the people, for the people, and so on. Okay. So should we limit immigration on that basis? Should we exclude all Muslims who believe in sharia law? I would ask Campbell if we should deport all Muslims who believe in sharia law. After all, they have no commitment whatever to that which binds us together.
This is the fatal defect of reasoning in those who insist on a “proposition nation.” It takes a nation, formed by all the usual factors—language, customs, location, religion—and replaces it with a political party. Not only that, but then they refuse to impose party discipline. The end result is confusion stacked upon confusion.
Enough for now.