One of the things I learned from Rushdoony (is that okay to admit?) is the concept of tolerance as false truce. All law is imposed morality, and the only question is which morality is going to be imposed, not whether one is going to be imposed. Periods of “tolerance” are times when this appears not to be the case, but the appearance is just temporary. Tolerant times are actually times of transition — as one reigning paradigm replaces another. Usually this idea is played out and debated in discussions of the Christian faith in its collision with secularism.
But a good practice in chess is to think several moves ahead. What will the board look like half an hour from now? To change the metaphor, we don’t want to spend our time thinking about the curve we successfully navigated three miles back when we ought to be thinking about the dangerous curve three miles ahead. In that spirit, and please bear with me, I think we can say that raw secularism is a dinosaur. I honestly believe that secularism has had it. That doesn’t mean that sin has had it though, more’s the pity. Economic folly hasn’t had it, imperialism hasn’t had it, publicly-praised sodomy hasn’t had it, and so on.
One of the ways to tell that secularism has had it (remember, we are thinking ahead) is the fact that N.T. Wright can say things about the lordship of Jesus Christ that are structurally identical to what Gary North used to say about it. But the lordship of Jesus + soft, semi-leftist socialism goes down kinda smooth and easy, like butterscotch pudding. The lordship of Jesus + closing down the abortion mills is harsh and austere and mean-spirited.
For about three generations after the War Between the States, conservative Christians were badgered into accepting dualism — public square over here and spiritual things over there. In the early seventies, right here in the US of A, the religious right blew up, which was a close call for the powers that be. The religious right got a lot of things right (abortion, homo-marriage) and screwed up a bunch of other stuff (prayer in public schools). But the central thing that they got right was that they believed that Jesus had actual opinions about legislation before Congress. And if you made a list of those things (just the ones they got right), that would be a list that most of us would call “conservative.” The counter-attack was fierce, and succeeded in getting a lot of these Christians back into the role of politically-active dualists. But instead of passive dualists, they are now active dualists. “I am conservative, and a political activist, but that’s not because of Jesus. But I happen to believe in Jesus.”
Once this was accomplished, we suddenly started hearing a lot more from the theonomic left — liberation theology, civil rights preachers, soft socialism in the name of mercy, etc. We have all seen countless examples of this. Obama can say things about Jesus that Fred Thompson couldn’t — even if Fred wanted to.
For another example, N.T. Wright wants us to forgive Third World debt in the name of Christ, but he fails to see how this will result either in a monstrous subsidy of evil or neo-colonialism. That doesn’t make the current holders of the debt choir-boys either, but it does mean that clerics who get into politics like this should know what they are talking about, and the actual effects of what they propose.
The thing that put me on this trail of thought is a book on how to interpret history in the light of a concept like God’s judgment (God’s Judgments by Steven Keillor). I agree with Keillor that God acts in history, intervening with His judgments. I agree with that, and I agree we can generally know why. But was 911 a judgment for sodomite marriage or corporate globalization? Keillor aside, if a man affirms the former, he will get hooted off the stage like he was Falwell or something. If the latter, he is a thoughtful and statesmanlike figure. That alone should tell you a great deal.
When Jerry Falwell passed away, there were some, like Christopher Hitchens, who showed up to dance on the grave. There were many others, in the good will of the moment, who loved to say, “I may not have always agreed with the Rev. Falwell, but . . .” The only one who appeared to understand anything about what was going on was Ann Coulter, who said that she agreed with everything that Falwell had ever said or done.
Christians need to reject the idea that we are limited to the choices of a secular left and a secular right. It is a false dilemma. We are Christians, and we really should be committed to a third way. But if my forecasting here is accurate, I think that it will not be that long before secular will not be an adjective describing either one of our options. What will biblical Christians do when the choice before us is one of the Christian left and the Christian right? If the choice for president were between Jim Wallis and Pat Robertson, I wouldn’t be any happier than I am right now.
A lot of work needs to be done on this, and the centrality of mercy is very important in it — which means that the first order of business is to shut down the abortion industry. That’s the big E on the eye chart. If we don’t succeed in doing that, we are not qualified to do anything else.