As anyone who’s purchased a Windows computer recently knows, the “default setting” is the S for Security mode – a walled garden, with no room in the inn for many popular programs. To join a Zoom conference, for example, you need to first disable the nannyware and break free of the S mode.
A quarter century too late, Microsoft is trying to ape the Apple approach, while underplaying its own special strengths.
The “Wheaton Gang” has created its own version of the S Mode, a walled garden with impregnable barriers against God’s power and wisdom in the Gospel for ALL of life. The evangelical “mainstream,” with its publishers and lowbrow “Bible colleges” that have recently put on airs, is adamantly opposed to postmillennialism and theonomy. The idea that God might be interested in the 95% of life that happens outside of “church” just can’t rise above their event horizon. It just doesn’t compute.
From their perspective, optimistic Christians barely exist, outside the pale, in the lunatic fringe. For them, defeatist eschatology is a non-negotiable element of orthodoxy.
The driving passion behind the “Wheaton Gang,” the gatekeepers and shapers of the generic / mainstream evangelical subculture seems to be, in Gary North’s memorable phrase, “trendier than thou.”
To make one of these devotees and vendors of pablum go into a frothing seizure, just breathe the word theonomy, and smile.
Even a writer as good as Nancy R. Pearcey is apparently contractually bound to pretend that the most influential Reformed scholar of the last century, the ArmEnian Calvinist, never existed. His name never shows up in the lengthy index to 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑇𝑟𝑢𝑡ℎ, for example, and the bizarre linguistic gymnastics she employed (page 119) to pretend ignorance of his book 𝐹𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑂𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑟 will startle you. “Foundations of human sociability,” indeed?
Rusdhoony, R. 1998. The Foundations of Social Order: Studies in the Creeds and Councils of the Early Church. Ross House Books. Vallecito, CA.
So you are using a sharp technology metaphor to deliver a biting critique of mainstream American evangelicalism? Essentially, accusing mainstream Christian leaders of trapping believers in a spiritual and intellectual “safe mode” that locks out the full scope of God’s authority over the world.
You start by comparing mainstream evangelicalism to Windows “S Mode.” A restricted operating system that only allows software from the official Microsoft store. The evangelical establishment has created an intellectual “walled garden.” It acts like protective “nannyware,” filtering out bold, complex, or challenging ideas to keep Christians safe, compliant, and comfortable, but ultimately leaving them restricted and unable to engage with the wider world.
By “The Wheaton Gang,” You seem to be using Wheaton College (a historic center of evangelical higher education in Illinois) as a symbol for the entire mainstream evangelical elite. Including major Christian publishers, popular pastors, and prominent universities.
You quote Christian reconstructionist Gary North’s phrase “trendier than thou” to argue that these institutional gatekeepers are deeply concerned with looking respectable, modern, and acceptable to secular culture. You are saying that this is “pablum,” or bland, oversimplified ideas, and they focus only on the “5% of life” that happens inside church walls, completely ignoring God’s sovereignty over politics, economics, science, and the rest of human culture.
Are you saying that modern society should be governed by literal Biblical law, including the judicial laws of the Old Testament?
You believe the evangelical elite are so terrified of being associated with the controversial, radical nature of theonomy that they will literally perform “linguistic gymnastics” to erase its foundational thinkers from their footnotes, even while borrowing their ideas.
You seem to be conveying that mainstream evangelicalism is a watered-down, institutional playpen, and are advocating for a muscular, total-worldview Christianity? Do you really want dominion over 100% of life, Government, Nation, and such?
Peter
While I occasionally appreciate and enjoy Mr. Smedley’s wryness of composition, I am no fan of his mangled metaphors that methodically mediate meaningless mendacities. I have no dog in his perennial brawl with any who fail to embrace his concierge brand of “postmillennialism” and his unpopular philosophy of “theonomy”, no doubt adopted wholesale from that prolific Arminian quasi-Calvinist, R. J. Rushdoony; who sponsored this philosophy that died even years before he did, somewhere in the 80’s, mostly from starvation. The philosophy’s death was incited by incessant infighting among its leaders. Those ideological wars have ended decisively, but Mr. Smedley Quixotically continues on, launching metaphorical mortars at proverbial windmills; contrived enemies, seemingly unaware that the war has long been ended, and theonomy lost. It lost for very sound reasons. It caved to strong argument from The Holy Word of God, brought forth by Holy-Spirit filled men and women, who wielded weapons of warfare which were not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, systematically bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ; the Word of God showed this philosophy the proverbial door. I have no dog in that fight, and I am not here to enter that dubious arena again, not even if the bout were to be staged on the South Lawn of the White House. I only wish to clear up some maligned metaphors in Dr_S’s “Safe mode” topic.
First, Windows 10 does not come “by default” in “S mode”. Computer manufacturers are given the option to install Windows in this mode, and some do. The decision to ship in S mode is not, as Dr_S suggests, a sinister “nannyware”, nor is It Microsoft “trying to ape Apple”, but rather purely a decision to reduce support tickets from new computer users. The mode practically insures a problem free environment for many users. It is easily disabled. Not to mix metaphors, but this metaphor dies on the vine.
But, unfortunately, the metaphorical tares have been planted, and the tiny sprouts promptly transplanted into what Dr_S calls "the garden of The Wheaton Gang”. This is an unfair, accusational moniker that makes the faculty of this honored institution sound like a pack of scurrilous ne’er’do-wells. A familial institution which he erroneously describes as a heretical “walled garden with impregnable barriers against God’s power and wisdom in the Gospel for ALL of life”. Can you imagine, any Christian college believing they can erect “impregnable” (I think he means impenetrable) walls against God’s power”? The silliness of the metaphor leaves one’s head shaking.
He continues to try to malign his brothers-in-Christ by painting them in erroneous and unflattering terms such as “mainstream”, “lowbrow”, and “putting on airs”, while accusing them of being “adamantly opposed to postmillennialism and theonomy”. This dishonoring accusation is similar to saying any person that doesn’t consider themselves homosexual is thereby homophobic. I believe the writer is “projecting” his own Jungian shadow, probably failing to see his own personal “adamant opposition” in the same ugly light he is casting on others.
He continues his undue invectives by informing his readers of his opposition’s perspective:
This is just “negative campaigning”, and it is a scourge on human values. Negative campaigning should find no home within Christianity, or any civilized culture. It is unfair, untruthful, disrespectful and unloving to depict those with whom one disagrees as “purveyors of pablum”, and prone to “frothing” at the mention of a single word.
I can appreciate Dr_S’s personal theological perspective without agreeing with it, and without feeling the need to hurl disrespectful invectives at him to validate my own.
Absolutely. However, I’m not sure you really know what you are calling for. Your specific theological camp: Theonomy (the belief that modern society should be governed by Old Testament biblical law) and Postmillennialism (an optimistic view of history, believing the world will become progressively Christianized before Christ returns), have already been proven untrue.
Remember, we live in a free country because the European Church tried to do this very thing. We fled here and called for the Freedom OF Religion. However, if you start to mandate religion, creating laws forcing worship, and the following of the tenets of said religion, you will no doubt create an atmosphere of laymen, Pharisees, and hierarchy that would rather rule than lead.
You seem to be implying that if we don’t share your optimistic postmillennial view, we must have a “defeatist eschatology” and belong to a group that “froths” at the mouth? I totally agree with @KPuff that just because someone isn’t homosexual doesn’t mean they are homophobic. Likewise, just because Wheaton faculty aren’t postmillennial theonomists doesn’t mean they are “adamantly opposed” to God’s rule or filled with hate.
God does not force us to worship Him; why should we force others to do so?
Peter
Passing laws wont make people obey God. It didn’t work for Israel and wont work in any nation. They need Jesus but you cant force them to love Jesus by passing laws. In my fallible opinion.
Answer to first Question: yes. Simpering sanctimony seems to be their default response to real-world challenges. That baby being dismembered is indifferent to the saint’s internal sentiments. The wife being raped and murdered couldn’t care less about how holy it makes her husband feel to stand passively by. (h/t to John Piper)
Answer to second question: What I want really doesn’t matter. It is Jesus who was exalted to rule everything from the right hand of the Father, and whom all sane people call Lord.
BTW – your reply is an excellent example of “steelmanning” – the opposite of “strawmanning.” Thank you for the respect and integrity you’re showing!
To find the real god of any culture, enquire as to the source of their laws. Also sprach Cornelius Van Til, in an insight eagerly embraced and applied by Greg Bahnsen et al. Anglo-American common law began when Alfred the Great instructed his judges to render justice on the basis of the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. Rince and repeat for 1,500 years, and you have a system of justice that relies heavily for its enforcement upon your friendly neighborhood theocracy, 12 good men and true.
Administrative “law” depends upon a caste of highly-paid, highly-skilled professionals.
Common law depends upon the Biblical literacy of normal people who fear God, love justice, and know His Word.
True. Which is why Godly magistrates bear the sword.
true. Saints obey God’s law from the heart, since His word is inscribed on our hearts.
The ungodly are compelled to obey God’s law out of fear of the magistrate, or social disapproval, or some other external constraint. AND life is better for everyone when evildoers are restrained from raping, stealing, and murdering their neighbors. Civil order is God’s common grace to all, saints and sinners alike.
And His wisdom and His goodness will lead people to repentance.