A Field Guide to Conservatives, as Narrated by David Attenborough

Introduction

So this next chapter by Campbell is kind of long, so I am not going to tackle it all in one go. The territory to be covered this time around will simply be pp. 134-152—that should be quite enough of a treat for one morning. We were not put into this world for pleasure alone.

Lest you get discouraged, we are coming near to the end of the book. We are not quite there yet, but we can see it from here. We have rounded the bend, and have come into the straight.

It is worth reminding everyone, yet again, that the publisher of this book is IVP. Back in the 1970’s, they were publishing books like Knowing God by Packer, and The Cross of Christ by John Stott, and The Mark of a Christian by Francis Schaeffer. Just goes to show that you can’t be too careful.

Expotition to the North Pole

For those who missed it, the header there is a literary allusion.

The chapter starts with Caleb Campbell describing what happened when he went on a big explore. He attended the first-ever TPUSA Faith Pastors Conference in San Diego, and boy, did he hear some stuff.

His summary of everything was that conservatives were being rallied in order to “take government power” (p. 135), a move undertaken in order to “protect the church and family” (p. 136). This was accurate as far as it goes, in that he included the word protect, but the way he tells it still glosses over the defensive nature of all this. It is as though the victim of a mugging fought off an attacker and relieved that gentleman of his knife, and then a critic summarized the would-be victim’s efforts as an exercise in “knife seizing” or “grabbing at knives.” Well, yes, but there was a larger context. When the victim woke up that morning, there was not a thought of knives anywhere in his head. That particular noun came to his attention later on, in the alley.

Government power is being wielded now. Government power is not this unused resource that conservatives one day decided to chase. No. Government power is the knife in the hands of the mugger. And while it is true that “leave us alone” is not exactly a robust political theology, it is nevertheless a start. And it is precisely because the left refused absolutely to leave us alone that led numerous. conservative Christians to expand the scope of their reading of the Puritans and the Reformed. By expand, I mean outside the subjects addressed in Banner of Truth reprints. It turns out there is a fully-formed political theology back there. Who knew?

Anyhow, the way Campbell summarizes the points he heard being made at the conference is really striking. As in, really something. Take this, for example:

How dare you Christian nationalists use inflammatory language about abortion. Are you trying to get somebody killed?

Campbell follows a consistent pattern in his analysis, and it is a pattern that shows that he must be really confident of the demographic make-up of his readership. He consistently reports on an “outrageous” position—outrageous, that is, to any person likely to buy an IVP book on Christian nationalism, meaning a person also a likely owner of an NPR book bag—and he just serenely assumes how outrageous the whole thing is, with no attempt at argument at all.

In the abortion example above, he just assumes that abortion involves no slaughter, no butchery, and no tearing limb-from-limb. If it does involve those things, then shouldn’t we say so? And if it does not, could we please see the arguments for maintaining that it does not? Perhaps it is not the pro-life language about abortion that is outrageous, but rather that the abortion culture itself is outrageous. Just perhaps.

With 60 million dead in America to date, and with a disproportionate number of those victims being black, brought about by the connivance of black leaders gulled by white liberals like Campbell, what would you like us to call it? There is a common consensus that Hitler with his 6 million was a genocidal dictator. We are now at ten times that . . . so how and why did we get a bye? Maybe we got a bye because our collective conscience is seared. And perhaps when the day of judgment arrives, it will turn out not to have been a bye at all.

But Campbell’s comments are deliberately nebulous so that if called on it he can always say something like “of course I value the lives of the unborn. It is just that I believe that a consistent pro-life position needs to include an emphasis on minimum wage laws and gun control. To speak of ‘severed limbs’ just distracts us from our ultimate goal, that ultimate goal being human flourishing.”

Field Guide Template

As he instructs his readers on how to interact with Christian nationalists, Campbell emphasizes that he is not providing tips for debating. He is not trying to equip his readers to approach our dark lair with any intention of slaying the dragon. No, this is a missionary endeavor, not an occasion for debating. This is an attempt at mutual understanding, kind of.

Because you can only export what you have, Campbell’s idea of helpful mission work is to have meaningful conversations. In his world, meaningful conversations contain phrases like “I can certainly hear what you are saying, Ralph, and I deeply empathize. Tell me, what do you feel whenever these thoughts occur to you?”

His suggested template for conversations includes these elements in response to “an out-there statement” made by a Christian nationalist.

Campbell says to begin with clarifying questions. These are neutral questions designed to help the missionary understand what is actually being said. This is a great principle, actually, and one that Campbell sedately ignores throughout his book. The second would be an encouragement to note any shared values. This our old friend, common ground. Then he comes to shibboleths, phrases that would indicate friendship, and red flags, which would indicate hostility. The former are to be cultivated, and the latter avoided. A shibboleth in talking with a conservative alien life form could be something like, “Yeah, I own a couple of guns myself.” Now sure, they were your great grandfather’s from the time of the Second World War, but you do have them in the attic. A red flag would say something like “all gun owners are glazed-eye maniacs.” Don’t say anything like that. The next to last thing would be to find a good thing to honor somewhere in there. This would be another iteration of the common ground thing mentioned earlier. And the last would be what Campbell calls humble subversion. This is where you ask, quite gently, if the person you are talking to has ever considered alternative interpretations concerning the fatal head wound in Revelation 13. “Have you ever considered the interpretations of those who don’t believe this was referring to JFK’s assassination?”

If My People . . .

The first area where Campbell seeks to model this template for us would be the area of out-of-context Bible verses. He applies the treatment to several commonly-cited Scripture passages, but the granddaddy of them all would be 2 Chronicles 7:14, to wit:

He also treats other verses that he claims are out of context, but we can do well enough if we just camp out here for a minute.

The glaring challenge in this has to do with the relationship of the old covenant and the new covenant, and the precise identity of the “my people” here. Who are those people who are “called by my name?” In the original context, this was referring to Israel. The Temple built by Solomon had been dedicated, and the Lord appeared to Solomon in a night vision, telling him what the people should do if, because of their sins, they were afflicted by drought, locusts, or plague. The people should humble themselves and pray.

Now clearly this is a place where it is most necessary to resort to a phrase like mutatis mutandis—after the necessary adjustments have been made. American is not Israel, we are not uniquely called by God’s name, the way that Israel was. But we were a nation in covenant with the God of the Bible, and we have certainly strayed from that covenant. So, everything else being equal, should we humble ourselves and pray? Or not?

Now the really interesting thing is that Campbell does believe there is an appropriate way to do this.

Okay, great. Check. I can agree with that. But what do we come up with if we engage in what Campbell believes to be responsible exegesis?

In case you were wondering, those who have “suffered injustice and harm” would not seem to include the rape victims of illegal aliens. Look at the words he uses. Marginalized. Injustice. Harm. And this brings the central question to the fore, once again. By what standard?

Campbell believes that 2 Chronicles 7:14 is not being twisted or taken out of context if it is viewed through a left-of-center filter. I don’t know about you, but something about this seems off to me.

“If my people, who are called by my name, repent of the abortion carnage, then I will hear . . .” What are you, nuts? America is not Israel! That’s in the Old Testament!

“If my people, who are called by my name, repent of their xenophobic border policies, then I will hear . . .” Finally! The spirit of gentle Jesus, meek and mild! The genius of the Jubilee-heart!