Topic
What Doug Wilson says about Christian nationalism and theocracy
Douglas Wilson would like America to be a Christian nation, and he means it literally: a country that formally confesses Christ as Lord, with laws to match. He figures it will take about 250 years. Asked by NPR what it would look like, he said, “fluffy clouds and unicorns.” Here is the rest of the plan, in his own words.
Democracy Should Be Replaced With Theocracy
Secularism: we need to abandon the idea of secularism, and replace it with the biblical doctrine of three distinct governments—family, church, and state, all of them under the authority and lordship of Jesus Christ.
Can someone committed to the long-term mission of the Christian church, which is in fact to disciple all the nations of men (Matt. 28:19-20), with the end result of that process being the obedience of all those same nations, be genuinely committed to a robust doctrine of free speech? […] Our mission remains the same, which is to bring every thought captive. The mission assigned to the church in the Great Commission is the eradication of idolatry in the entire world. […] What I am arguing for is not a secular libertarian ideal, where any man can blaspheme if he wants to. Rather, in its long war against blaspheming idols, the Christian church started by attacking the biggest blasphemers, the central blasphemers, the blasphemers with the power of coercion. […] So what I am arguing for here is a Christocentric theonomy—theonomy as though the Christ had come. It is not a question of whether the law of God is just, but rather a matter of how that standard of justice is to be implemented throughout the world. It will eventually show up in the law, but it will not be implement(sic) through the law. […] This is why my ideal Christian republic, set sometime in the future, would not have a law requiring a parapet around the roofs of houses, but would nevertheless hold a home owner liable for damages if a guest fell off a second-story deck that had no rail and broke his arm. You look at a situation, discern the principle, and apply it to a new situation. […] This means that as we teach the nations and tribes to obey every one of the Lord’s commands, and to submit to all of His teachings, this would include His teaching that Old Testament Scripture cannot be broken, and that He did not come to abolish the law but rather to fulfill it.
[Leila Fadel: "Now, you've made it clear that you want a Christian theocracy."] Yes. [Leila Fadel: "In this country. You've declared yourself a Christian nationalist. What would that look like in the United States?"] It would look like fluffy clouds and unicorns and everybody would be happy. That's my vision.
[Pamela Brown: "How far off do you see a [Christian nation?], like a full-on Christian [theocracy?]?"] Oh, 250 years. [Pamela Brown: "250 years?"] Yeah... [Pamela Brown: "But you do think it will happen?"] Yes, I do. We're not going to usher in anything ourselves. We're really, genuinely pioneers.
Transcribed from the video’s automatic captions. Words in [brackets?] are our best reading of unclear audio. Watch the clip to hear it for yourself.
As we continue to fulfill this obligation, the goal is to have civilization and the kingdom of God become more and more synonymous and harder and harder to tell apart.
Muslims Should Not Be Citizens of the United States
Wilson Probably the best illustration of this would be church bells, yes. Minarets, no.
Fadel Why?
Wilson Because the public space would belong to Christ. So church bells can occupy the public space, but a minaret is a loudspeaker, a big call to prayer. Could Muslims pray to Allah? Yes. Could they gather together to pray to Allah? Yes.
Fadel But they should do it quietly and in their homes?
Wilson But they should recognize that they’re in a Christian country. And consequently, they should defer to that.
In my biblical republic, if Muslims were here — not citizens, but residents — if they were traveling merchants or whatever, and you had a number of Muslims in the same town and they wanted to get together and pray together, would that be a problem? No. Would they be allowed to build a minaret? No. Church bells? Yes.
Muslims and Hindus would be free to think what they think and pray the way they pray and gather together with other people, but there would be no minarets. Church bells, yes, but no minarets, because the public space belongs to Christ.
So, if we put a million Muslims down in the middle of Nebraska, you don't have additional Nebraskans, you have little Pakistan now, right? And that's what my concern is. So, in an ordinary situation where you didn't have open borders, I would say, "Yeah, mosques, certainly. Muslims could believe and teach as they are have they their convictions." Mosques, yes, minarets, no... Church bells are all right because the public space would belong to Jesus. Minarets, no, because the public space belongs to Jesus. So, but I believe in liberty of conscience, I believe in religious liberty, and there should be no persecution of Hindus, Jews, Muslims, unless their religion involves flying airplanes into skyscrapers, right? If they're jihadis.
Non-Christians Should Be Barred From Public Office
Fadel Could [non-Christians] serve in public office? Could they vote?
Wilson So if you had a Christian republic, the Constitution would be Christian. And an office holder would have to vow to uphold the Constitution. So everybody who holds public office...
Fadel ...Would have to be Christian?
Wilson Would have to vow to uphold the Christian Constitution. Yeah.
Fadel So technically they wouldn’t be in public office?
Wilson Technically, they would not be.
[...]
Fadel So for example, I’m a woman who’s not married, who doesn’t have children and who is Muslim. So in a future Christian theocracy, where the 19th Amendment is repealed, what is my role in public life? Do I get to vote? Do I get to run for office?
Wilson No, you wouldn’t hold office because you couldn’t vow to uphold the Christian Constitution.
In order for this to happen at all, the Church must be established, in the sense that the magistrate has the responsibility to recognize her, to convene synods and councils to seek her counsel, and to listen to her. The magistrate himself has the responsibility, as a public figure, in the discharge of his office, to believe in Jesus, Lord of Heaven and earth.
I don’t think he [a non-Christian] can be an office holder, because an office holder has to swear to uphold the Constitution, and if the Constitution is explicitly Christian, I can see non-Christians wanting to live in a Christian society, but I can’t see them vowing to uphold it and defend it, etc. So yes, I think a non-believer or an infidel can be a citizen in a Christian nation; I don’t think he can be an office holder.
If these are the tenets that hold our nation up, shouldn’t we require all office holders within our nation to hold to these standards personally? That means no atheists, by the way. Number two, that means no communists, by the way. Number three, that means no members of the Nation of Islam, by the way. Number one, no Darwinists, either.
[Phil Williams: "In the America that you would like to see, Jews would be deemed unfit to hold office."] Well, I would say there's a difference between disqualified and unfit. So for example, right now you can't— [PW: "You're essentially saying they're less than."] No. If a 30-year-old man is not qualified to run for president. But he might be way better qualified than many of the people we've had as presidents. So, it's just simply these are the boundaries. Now, when you're asking about holding political office, if we're talking about America 300 years from now and we're a Christian republic, okay? And it's represented in our Constitution and laws, I want nothing more than what we currently have. Our office holders vow to uphold the Constitution, right? And if the Constitution is Christian, and it would only get that way if it did so by democratic means, lawful means, then I would want our office holders to be able to vow to uphold this Constitution, which is Christian. [PW: "But isn't that inherently anti-Semitic if you're pushing for a constitution that says Jews cannot hold office?"] No.
[Cenk Uygur: "So do, okay, since I am not a Christian, if you got your way and we have Christian nationalism, do I have the same rights as you?"] There would be, yes, you'd have the same rights but you wouldn't have the same privileges. So for example... I mentioned earlier the ideal republic 500 years down the road, in a biblical republic that was explicitly Christian there would be religious tests for office holders, right? So if you came to America in 1800 and you were living in South Carolina, as a Muslim, or as an atheist actually, you wouldn't be allowed to hold public office. You couldn't be elected to the legislature. But you'd be allowed to live there... [Cenk Uygur: "But not equal because they wouldn't get to run for office... They could be ruled but they could not be part of the ruling class. Only Christians."] Correct. So, if I moved to Saudi Arabia, I wouldn't expect to be allowed to do anything in terms of governance.
What frequently the states would do is they prohibited public office to someone who didn't believe in God or a future state of rewards and punishments... If we're whiteboarding this and you're asking me to describe the ideal Christian republic 500 years from now, I would sketch out a number of things. We could talk about this Presbyterian utopia 500 years from now. If you ask me what my interest is right now, my interest right now is not to exclude atheists and Muslims right now. We've got bigger fish to fry in the moment.
Those people who inaugurated a high revolt against heaven and every form of natural law, right? So we're dealing— we are living in a generation of rebels... We're in the middle of a great apostasy. And that great apostasy says there is no God. Everything's chance, natural selection. We make our own rules and we have full authority to make our own rules. We don't answer to anybody. Now, consequently, I don't want those guys anywhere near the levers of power, right? ... And so consequently, I think the logical positivists and all their cousins have to be excluded from the conversation. They— their worldview cannot be given a seat at the table. Period.
We're in the middle of a great apostasy. And that great apostasy says there is no God. Everything's chance, natural selection. We make our own rules and we have full authority to make our own rules. We don't answer to anybody. Now, consequently, I don't want those guys anywhere near the levers of power, right? ... I want the Christians to tell Caesar to quit pointing his sword at decent, law-abiding, God-fearing people because the sword is inescapable... And so consequently, I think the logical positivists and all their cousins have to be excluded from the conversation. Their worldview cannot be given a seat at the table. Period.
There is no other way, no other option. If you will not have Christ-sons for rulers, then you have made your choice—you will have the Herod-apes for rulers.
[Leila Fadel: "So for example, I'm a woman who's not married, who doesn't have children and who is Muslim. So in a future Christian theocracy where the 19th Amendment is repealed, what is my role in public life? Do I get to vote? Do I get to run for office?"] No, you wouldn't hold office because you couldn't [vow to?] uphold the Christian constitution. And whether you voted or not would have nothing to do with whether you were a woman or not... [Leila Fadel: "If I'm the head of my household."] If you're the head of the household, if you were head of the household and Christian, you would vote. [Leila Fadel: "And if I'm head of the household and not Christian?"] Then that would depend probably on the state.
Transcribed from the video’s automatic captions. Words in [brackets?] are our best reading of unclear audio. Watch the clip to hear it for yourself.
Teenage Delinquents Should Be Publicly Beaten With a Rod
Proverbs is talking about corporal punishment for some eighteen-year-old teenage delinquent, the kind of kid that wrecks someone’s car. In a more sane society, the teenager would be flogged or beaten with a rod, released, and then made to pay restitution.
One of the great errors of our day is that we have tried to have the civil magistrate take over the job of discipline. Why do we have penitentiaries? That is where you go to become penitent. The whole system of the penitentiary was built by the state to do the familial work of discipline, which the civil magistrate is not competent to do. The civil magistrate is assigned the sword (Rom. 13), not the spanking spoon.
Atheists Should Not Get to Participate in Political Decision-Making
Do you believe that a nihilist should lose his citizenship? [Paul D. Miller: "No. We did talk earlier about religious test for office and I said cautiously in a hypothetical future state maybe you can require office holders to affirm natural law morality."] But if he's a nihilist, absolute nihilist, why should he be allowed to be a citizen? Hasn't he denied the whole foundation of the state? Hasn't he rejected his own citizenship? [Paul D. Miller: "Because he's made in the image of God..."] ... But the state has the right to pronounce him wrong and say this atheistic nihilism, materialism, we're not going to base anything in our legal structure on that. [Paul D. Miller: "I think that's correct. Not to the point of suppressing his speech... The nihilist has the right to propagate nihilism."] Yeah. I'm distinguishing: you don't persecute the nihilist. I don't want to persecute the nihilist. I just want to say no, you don't get to participate in this decision-making process.
Do you believe that a nihilist should lose his citizenship? [Paul Miller: "No..."] But if... he's a nihilist, absolute nihilist, why should he be allowed to be a citizen? Hasn't he denied the whole foundation of the state? Hasn't he rejected his own citizenship? [Miller: "Because he's made in the image of God..."] ... But the state has the right to pronounce him wrong and say this atheistic nihilism, materialism, we're not going to base anything in our legal structure on that. [Miller: "...Not to the point of suppressing his speech."] No. [Miller: "The nihilist has the right to propagate nihilism."] Yeah. Yeah, I'm not— I'm distinguishing. You don't persecute the nihilist. I don't want to persecute the nihilist. I just want to say no, you don't get to participate in this decision-making process.
In His Ideal Protestant Republic, Catholic Processions Would Not Get Parade Permits
[Michael Knowles: "Cuz you got in a lot of hot water when you said, 'Well, look, in a Christian nationalist view, we would be banning all sorts of nonsense and the gay stuff and pride and all this.' And Catholic processions, you know, a Eucharistic procession or a Marian procession."] ...Now, what I was doing was imagining an ideal republic 500 years down the road, and I was conceptually talking about what would you do in a Protestant republic?... So basically politics is the art of the possible. So in the current moment, I want to stand with Catholics shoulder to shoulder against the secular Klingons... At the same time, when someone talks to me about, well, how do you conceptualize this? Where is this all going? I believe that simple honesty requires me to answer the question and not to be coy. So if I were to conceptualize an integralist Catholic country, I would not expect—I wouldn't expect to get a parade permit for my sausage parade in Lent.
Public Stadium Executions Are Biblically Sound So Long as Tickets Are Distributed by Lottery
Under biblical law, executions were public. When an execution occurs, society has decided to kill someone... Whatever arguments can be brought against public executions, therefore, are arguments that would be equally valid against every execution mandated by Scripture... Not only so, but witnesses in a capital case not only had to testify against the defendant, but also had to participate in the execution if he was found guilty (Deuteronomy 17:7)... This is why I think we should resist methods of execution like lethal injection... I’ve long disliked the fact that our executions, when they happen, occur at midnight deep in the recesses of a penitentiary somewhere... Put this another way: suppose Hasan was going to be hanged in a stadium. Nothing wrong with that. Do you let vendors sell popcorn and hot dogs? Of course not. Do you sell tickets? Of course not. You obviously must have tickets, but they would have to be apportioned by lottery. Executions must not be allowed to degenerate into a commercial enterprise.
The Government Should Adopt the Apostles’ Creed
Jesus is Lord. I have been arguing for years now that what is required is a return to Christendom, but in a form that I call mere Christendom. If you like, you can call it mere fundamentalism. A free civilization is necessarily larger than any of the Christian denominations within it, but at the same time a free civilization will have to be Christian. So I propose no single established church, no tax-supported denominations, but I do propose the formal adoption of the Apostles’ Creed, and without any hermeneutical funny business. I propose that as a nation we formally confess together that Jesus actually did rise from the dead.
So I propose no single established church, no tax-supported denominations, but I do propose the formal adoption of the Apostles' Creed, and without any hermeneutical funny business. I propose that as a nation we formally confess together that Jesus actually did rise from the dead. If you protest that this would kill the great secular experiment that is America, I would reply that the great secular experiment that is America appears to have already gone out behind the barn and shot itself already.
If the [powers that be?] in Washington were at all disposed to listen to me at all and they said, "What's the first step? What would you want us to do?" The first step would not be anything, no laws... The first step would be I would like to see a joint resolution of Congress signed by the president that said it is the decided view of the Congress of the United States of America that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead. Signed, President of the United States, and just say it.
Transcribed from the video’s automatic captions. Words in [brackets?] are our best reading of unclear audio. Watch the clip to hear it for yourself.
[Leila Fadel: "Do they count as Christian in your view?"] Yeah, I would want a basic Apostles' Creed definition of Christian for these purposes, yes. [Leila Fadel: "Mormons, Pentecostals?"] Well, the Mormons couldn't sign off on the Apostles' Creed. Pentecostals could. [Leila Fadel: "Could they serve in public office? Could they vote?"] So, if you had a Christian republic, the Constitution would be Christian. And an office holder would have to vow to uphold the Constitution.
A Christian America Would Outlaw Abortion, IVF, Same-Sex Marriage, Pornography and Pride Events
If I were to describe what a Christian America in the mid-21st century would look like, it would be all human abortion would be outlawed, including pills and including [abortifacients?], [Host: "IVF."] IVF. All human abortion would be outlawed. [Obergefell?] would be overturned... I would like to see all 50 states return to one man, one woman is the only form of marriage that we recognize... I would like to outlaw porn.
Transcribed from the video’s automatic captions. Words in [brackets?] are our best reading of unclear audio. Watch the clip to hear it for yourself.
[Pamela Brown: “What does that look like, though? An America ruled by Christ. Which is what you want?”] Yeah. Well, the most noticeable things right out of the gate would be things that aren’t going on anymore. We wouldn’t have clown world. We wouldn’t have drag queen story hours. We wouldn’t have pride parades. We wouldn’t have abortion on demand. You know, those things would be gone.
[Cenk Uygur: "No. No. But in a Christian nation, I don't mean right now."] Oh, so in a Christian nation we would outlaw abortion... If I were president, what kind of measure would I pass? I would outlaw all human abortion. Period... And I would say, "Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing. I want to impose my morality..." I want to impose Christian morality on the doctor and the mother and say to them, you can't do that... [Cenk Uygur: "So, but in a Christian nation, you would just overrule them and go, 'Sad day for you. You don't get to believe in your own morality.'"] That's correct.
Every Nation and Ruler Should Become Christian
The psalm concludes with an appeal to the kings of the earth to make their peace with the Christ. “Kiss the Son, lest He be angry.” The upshot of the psalm is that all the world’s political rulers are commanded to become Christians and to bring their glory and honor into the New Jerusalem.
[Pamela Brown: "What would you say to someone watching this to say, look, I'm a Muslim. Who are you to say your worldview is better than [mine?]..."] Well, if I went to Saudi Arabia, I would fully expect to live [under their?] God's rules. [Pamela Brown: "But you said earlier that you want [it?] to be a Christian world."] Yes. [Pamela Brown: "So you want to supplant their [religion?] with your Christian [faith?]?"] Yes. By peaceful means. By sharing [the gospel?].
Transcribed from the video’s automatic captions. Words in [brackets?] are our best reading of unclear audio. Watch the clip to hear it for yourself.
But Jesus did not want a small collection of struggling churches in Pakistan; He wants Pakistan itself. He is happy to begin with the small beachhead in an unbelieving nation, but that beachhead must not confuse itself with the coming occupation.
This is not a campaign where we are trying to get Jesus elected to anything. He is seated already at the right hand of God the Father, and He is already the king of Idaho, Virginia, Maryland, and Massachusetts. We have the task of announcing to the remaining rebels in the hinterlands that their capital city has already fallen, their ruler dethroned, and that resistance is futile.
Executing People for Breaking the Sabbath Is Good
When Elijah executed the priests of Baal down by the brook Kishon, what he did was not a violation of the modern spirit of ecumenism. What he did was holy, righteous, and good. When Moses commanded a man to be executed for picking up sticks on the sabbath, that too was holy, righteous, and good. And when the son of Shelomith blasphemed the name of the Lord in the camp, and was executed at the word of a holy God, his execution was holy, righteous, and good. There was nothing wrong with any of that.
[Sam Harris: “These are going to be good Christians with a biblical worldview. But then in that context, picking up sticks on the Sabbath could well be a killing offense because it's biblical.”] Yeah. So, sure. [Sam Harris: “Okay.”] All right. But let me compare this to where we are now, right?
Transcribed from the video’s automatic captions. Watch the clip to hear it for yourself.
So none of this is written because we as post-Enlightenment Christians are supposed to feel a little bit sheepish about all the Mosaic hardball. When Elijah executed the priests of Baal down by the brook Kishon, what he did was not a violation of the modern spirit of ecumenism. What he did was holy, righteous, and good. When Moses commanded a man to be executed for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, that too was holy, righteous, and good. And when the son of Shelomith blasphemed the name of the Lord in the camp and was executed at the word of a holy God, his execution was holy, righteous, and good. There was nothing wrong with any of that.
He Is “Not Against” Stoning Adulterers to Death
Douthat But we’re not completely [following Mosaic law]. I mean, at least in the discussion we just had, you did not advocate stoning adulterers, right?
Wilson No.
Douthat There are biblical precepts that allow for the stoning of adulterers in the Old Testament.
Wilson You are correct. Right.
Douthat And you’re not in favor of stoning adulterers?
Wilson Well, I’m not against it, either.
Douthat You are open to it.
Wilson No, this is the thing: Politics is the art of the possible.
Under the economy of the Old Testament, the offense was a capital offense—and not a mere sexual pecadillo: “And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death” (Lev. 20:10). Certainly an adulterer is worthy of death; a man who will betray his wife will betray anyone and anything. Adultery is treason against the family, and God hates it.
[Sam Harris: “We have a president of the United States who is widely believed to have committed adultery on his current wife... Shouldn't that be a killing offense if any should be?”] Well, if so, that could be. Yeah. So, but don't go in speculation with the Stormy Daniels one. I think if they go earlier to his first marriage, I think that's acknowledged on all hands that Trump was not a faithful husband. [Sam Harris: “So that's a scenario where stoning to death or otherwise being put to death at least should have been on the menu.”] Yeah, I think that's a—so for example, I mentioned King David earlier. King David was the king, and obviously having someone who is the head of the government who is guilty of that sort of crime, you do have certain practical problems about how to go about it. But in terms of what a person deserves, adultery—a man who will betray his wife will betray anything or anyone, and in the biblical world it is a very, very serious thing.
Jesus Endorsed Executing Rebellious Sons, and He Won’t Apologize for It Either
[Sam Harris: “So why don't we stone our children to death for talking back to us?”] Okay. So in the Old Testament when the parents turn over the rebellious delinquent child, the level of rebellion had to have been really significant. It was not an example of mom and son getting an argument over the dishes and he said, “Do them yourself.” That's not a capital crime. It's interesting that that passage of executing a rebellious son is a requirement that Jesus repeats in the Gospel of Mark without embarrassment. Jesus said, you know, the word of God says honor your father and mother, and whoever curses father and mother, let him die the death. But you say—and Jesus attacks the Pharisees for jiggering with that requirement. So he was not about to apologize for it, and neither am I. But I do want to maintain perspective. So for a father and mother to turn their wastrel son over to the authorities to be executed, his behavior had to have been really, really bad.
King David Slaughtering Two-Thirds of His Prisoners of War Was an “Admirable Example”
It should be obvious that in the time of Moses, that particular blasphemer could not appeal to his Jeffersonian right to free expression. And when David slaughtered two-thirds of his Moabite prisoners (2 Sam. 8:1–2), they did not have the recourse of appealing to the Geneva Convention. But what do these righteous laws and such admirable examples mean for us today?
Stoning a Man to Death for Blasphemy Was “Right and Proper,” With “No Apologies”
First, the executed man there was not a victim of injustice. He got a just penalty for his crime, and it was right and proper for the Israelites to stone him. No apologies here for Leviticus. God told them directly to execute him. How could it not be just? The Mosaic law as given to Israel in the wilderness was holiness in a kit. […] That law was, pure and simple, rough-cut justice. It was capable of killing blasphemers, which was right and good, but was still not capable of ending blasphemy.
The Old Testament Law Is Essentially Good, “Dead Teens and All, Slavery and All, Stoning for Adultery and All”
But the second is that our understanding of this will never be advanced by denying the essential goodness of the Old Testament law, dead teens and all, slavery and all, stoning for adultery and all. And so while I may differ with the recons about certain modern applications of biblical law, these are exegetical differences. I do not differ with them about the need to restore the Bible as the quarry from which to obtain the needed stone for our foundations of social order.
There Is No Wall of Separation Between Church and State
At that great day, when the sky and earth have fled to hide themselves, they will not be authorized to appeal to Jefferson’s “wall of separation” between church and state. There is no wall of separation between the authority of Jesus Christ and the authority of the civil magistrate.
Every knee and every tongue includes every knee and tongue in the White House and in Congress. It includes all nine tongues on the Supreme Court and all eighteen knees. Our corrupted justices are hereby told, in the name of Jesus Christ, that they have been summoned. They answer to an authority beyond them, an authority which is far beyond them. This encompasses the General Assembly of the U.N. and the entire future of mankind.
Remember: the reason Christians still own the public square is because Jesus rose from the dead in it.
My position on this can be summarized nicely and in brief compass. It is not the case that a mere Christendom would violate anything in the First Amendment, and the second point would be that, even if it did, we need Christ more than we need Madison.
We Should Abolish the EPA, the IRS and the Department of Education
The first thing that would happen in a biblical law order is that the EPA, the IRS, the Department of Education, etc. would all be abolished. Legitimate functions of government (Defense, State, etc.) would be significantly downsized or redirected.
The first thing that would happen in a biblical law order is that the EPA, the IRS, the Department of Education, etc. would all be abolished. Legitimate functions of government (Defense, State, etc.) would be significantly downsized or redirected.
The first thing that would happen in a biblical law order is that the EPA, the IRS, the Department of Education, etc. would all be abolished. Legitimate functions of government (Defense, State, etc.) would be significantly downsized or redirected.
The first thing that would happen in a biblical law order is that the EPA, the IRS, the Department of Education, etc. would all be abolished.
Biblical Law Allows Men to Take Captive Women as Wives
So the real point of conflict is not going to arise with this Bible character or that one, the ones who had concubines. The flattening is just starting with them. The discrediting just begins there. They are the Robert E. Lees in this little scenario. David the rapist is the Jeb Stuart in this game. The real issue is going to arise with what biblical law expressly allows. “And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.” Deuteronomy 21:11–14 (KJV) So, hey. Is there a power dynamic here? The authority of Scripture is one of the “statues” that is going to have to come down. It is the statue they are actually after. In my little parable here, it is the Washington monument.
The required biblical treatment of a captive woman here is remarkable for the humanity it displays. Although a modern feminist would consider this a complicated form of rape, the legal protections for women—even women from alien, unbelieving cultures—are considerable. An Israelite man could not take a woman in the lustful aftermath of battle, he could not have what he wanted “right now,” and he had to respect her duty to mourn for her family. After a month had passed, he could marry her, but her status was therefore elevated to that of a true wife.
Cites the Biblical Law for Stoning Non-Virgin Brides to Explain a Father’s Duty to Guard His Children’s Sexual Purity
Children must also respect the romantic responsibilities of their parents with regard to the child’s interests—“But if … evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones” (Deut. 22:20–21). A father is responsible for the sexual purity of his children.
Any Tax Above 10% Is the Government Trying to Be God
First, the level of taxation must not rival God (1 Sam. 8:15). God claims a tithe, and if that is all God needs, and if God is a jealous God, then we ought to see any attempt on the part of the civil government to go past ten percent as an aspiration to Deity.
Samuel warned the people that if they take a king like the other nations, they're going to get up to the horrendous rate of a tax rate of 10%. Hands up if you'd like your tax rate to get back to 10%. [laughter] Right? We are so used to being abused by the statists that we think it's normal. It really isn't normal. Because when the state claims a tithe, they're claiming equality with God. And that's what we're suffering under.
Doug and His Followers Are Christian Nationalists
We may not like the name of Christian nationalist, and we might want to have a word or two with the boys down in marketing, but in substance, we are Christian nationalists. In the meantime, I am more than willing to go by this name because we can at least work with it.
If we were in the business of using red baseball caps as a way of spreading our views, we would not opt for the MAGA hat. Our adversaries are trying to fit us out for a MAC hat—Make America Christian. Our reply to this is that if we are going to say it with hats, we would come up with a MACA hat—Make America Christian Again. [...] And not only has this Christian nationalism thing been done before, it has been done in America before. If we succeed, this will not be Christian America. If we succeed, this will be Christian America 2.0.
I actually think we need limited government. The government should be significantly smaller than it is, and we need to curtail a lot of the busybodyness that we have. That’s why I would call myself a theocratic libertarian. There is a true libertarian element in this and, yet, the transcendent grounding for what we’re talking about means that we acknowledge the authority of God.
God is angry with us. And that’s my short-form definition of Christian nationalism: America should stop making God angry... It’s a term I accept and embrace. It wasn’t a term I came up with, but I prefer it to the names I usually get called... Christian nationalism is the conviction that secularism is a failed project, and that no society can function or exist without a transcendental grounding.
This issue of eschatology I believe helps untie the knot of a debate that goes on within Christian nationalist circles, and that is: is Christian nationalism brought in as a top-down sort of thing or as a bottom-up revival, reformation and revival sort of thing? What is it? Reformation, revival bubbling up from the grassroots, or is it the steely magistrate finally deciding to knock some heads and take some names? ... Eschatology, a pervasive understanding of God's promises and intentions for the world, are a key ingredient I think in bringing these two halves together. Is it top down or is it bottom up? The answer is yes.
This issue of eschatology I believe helps untie the knot of a debate that goes on within Christian nationalist circles, and that is: is Christian nationalism brought in as a top-down sort of thing or as a bottom-up revival, reformation and revival sort of thing? What is it? Reformation, revival bubbling up from the grassroots, or is it the steely magistrate finally deciding to knock some heads and take some names? ... Eschatology, a pervasive understanding of God's promises and intentions for the world, are a key ingredient I think in bringing these two halves together. Is it top down or is it bottom up? The answer is yes.
Every Society Is Already a Theocracy
If there is a court of appeal past our human government, then in principle I have admitted theocracy. If there is no court of appeal past them, then I have just made them god. Having made them god, I discover that I am still in a theocracy, but instead of a loving Father, the theos of this system is corrupt and grasping, mendacious and low, and full of a flatulent hubris.
Why are we so afraid of theocracy? What might happen? Might we go on a rampage and kill sixty million babies? Yeah, that would be bad. Better not risk it. Might we set up a surveillance state, with camera clusters pointed in every direction at all the intersections? Right—theocracies are terrible like that. The real reason why our current rulers want us to react violently whenever we hear the word theocracy is that petty gods are always jealous of their position, and dread any talk of a Lord who rose from the dead.
[Leila Fadel: "But you would have to change portions of the Constitution to become a theocracy."] Actually, no. [Leila Fadel: "I mean, a lot of constitutional scholars would disagree with you."] Yeah, I disagree with them... Here, there's an important issue. All societies are theocratic. In every society, there's a point past which there's no appeal. There's always got to be a "the buck stops here." And when you've identified the point past which there is no appeal, you've identified the God of the system. [In] secular democracies, the God is demos, the people. In Saudi Arabia, the God is Allah. In a Christian republic, the God would be the Father of Jesus Christ... So my argument for Christian nationalism is very simple. If this is the state or society and God is over that society—if there is no God over the state, then the state becomes God.
Transcribed from the video’s automatic captions. Watch the clip to hear it for yourself.
For example, when we consider the "concept" of Deity, we see that it is "not whether, but which." It is not whether we will serve God, but rather which god we will serve. It is not whether we will impose morality through law, but rather which morality we will impose, and so on.
When most people hear about a "theocratic" anything, they assume they will soon be confronted with ayatollah-manned death panels. But all societies are theocratic, with the only thing distinguishing them being the nature and attributes of the reigning theos. Since our current theos happens to be a bloodthirsty maniac, and because I am not a devotee of that particular religion, I would urge my fellow citizens to turn away from him and turn to our heavenly Father.
One of the things I learned from Rushdoony is the idea of the inescapable concept—not whether but which. It is not whether we will impose morality, but rather which morality we will impose. As a confessing Christian, it is my desire to impose a Christian morality. But this is not to say that this would shut down the nonbeliever’s right to say anything.
As a Christian who believes that all governments are theocratic in principle, I want our deep suspicions about the depravity of human nature to begin with our rulers, and not with their subjects. […] This is not a softening of “theocracy,” but rather a foundational application of it.
It's not whether we will have a particular worldview as the foundation for our law. It's which worldview... Every government has minorities that don't go along with the reigning worldview. And nevertheless, the law based on that worldview is imposed on them. Right? So it's not whether but which. So yeah, a Muslim who came to America, if America were a Christian nation, a Muslim who came here would need to submit to laws that were framed with a Christian rationale. Just as if I moved to Saudi Arabia today, I would fully expect to have to deal with their God and the laws that were framed on the character and nature of their God.
“Blasphemy” Should Be Illegal
The second point for us to consider is the fact that Scripture repeatedly condemns kings and emperors and ecclesiastical officials for their genuine blasphemies. This is something that the powerful are routinely tempted to do. [...] So the great offenders when it comes to this sin would be the sleek, the rich, the powerful. [...] I could go downtown in any American city on any given day, and get arrested within fifteen minutes simply and solely on the basis of the content of what I was saying. It would not be called a blasphemy arrest, but that is exactly what it would be. The charge would be hate speech, or something like that—but the fact remains that the god of the system would be protected by the arm of the law. [...] So when someone says that they want our nation to be a Christian nation, as I have done, does this not mean that we have to figure out a way to incorporate the Scripture’s teaching on blasphemy? Yes, it does mean that.
So what I am arguing for here is a Christocentric theonomy—theonomy as though the Christ had come. It is not a question of whether the law of God is just, but rather a matter of how that standard of justice is to be implemented throughout the world. It will eventually show up in the law, but it will not be implement through the law.
All societies have blasphemy laws. We call them by different names, but I could go downtown in any major city in America and get arrested within half an hour simply on the basis of what I was saying. So it's what you blaspheme, what you're not allowed to blaspheme, not whether you blaspheme... Christians have to strengthen their view of how wicked blasphemy is. But they have to realize that the state is the one that is primed to be the greatest blasphemer... So I want to restrain the state from blaspheming, and that means we have to deal with the village atheist blasphemer with other lesser means and not—I really want to have resort to the law as a last resort.
This is what we call an inescapable concept. It's not whether but which. It's not whether you're going to impose a morality, it's which morality you're going to impose. It's not whether you have a theocracy, it's which theo is the god of the system... We have an established church. I could go downtown in any major American city and get arrested within 15 minutes on the basis of what I was saying alone. Okay? And they wouldn't call it blasphemy laws, but they'd call it hate crimes or, you know, whatever. But it functions as a blasphemy law. All societies that cohere have restrictions on things you can say or not say... So, then when someone comes along and envisions a Christian republic where the standards for the imposition are different standards, but you're doing the same thing. You're protecting a different center, but all societies protect their center.
Transcribed from the video’s automatic captions. Watch the clip to hear it for yourself.
Moscow, Idaho Should Be Governed By a Theocracy
One of the things that has disturbed our local secularists is that they have heard us saying things like “all of Christ for all of life for all of Moscow.” This seems to them as though we want to get control by earthly means. But we are talking about spiritual warfare. At the same time, spiritual warfare is not ethereal warfare, or some form of make-believe warfare. It is not as though there are no results. Of course there are results—God intends the result of a saved world.
We believe that Jesus is Lord, Christ is Lord, and a lot of churches have been willing to sort of subsume their faith under the big tent of America. Right? We’ll just take our little corner here and think our religious thoughts inside our head, inside this room. But we think the Christian faith is public, and I think that unsettles people. [...] And we do want Moscow to become a Christian town, but we want it all to happen voluntarily, by people moving here and being converted and bringing up their children here. [...] So theocracy is an inescapable concept. Pride parades absolutely would be illegal.
I want the authority of the Lord Jesus to be confessed by the House and the Senate, and I want the president to sign it.
“Basically this is a blue dot in a very, very red state and the blue dotters are pleased,” Wilson told Religion News Service in an interview. “Our mission is ‘All of Christ for all of life’ and if you drill that down, then for all of Moscow.” [...] “We could have Bovill for Jesus in two weeks,” Wilson joked, “but that wouldn’t be strategic.”
But then again, I’m a theocrat, not a secularist.
First, theocracy is inescapable. Every society is theocratic, every society has a god of the system. The ethical expectations governing the members of that society are generated by the god of the system, and dissenters are clubbed in accordance with the divine will. In Islamic republics, this god is Allah, in secular democracies it is Demos, in Alabama it is Football. [...] In a Christian republic, the church would be a separate and distinct institution from the state. But the separation of church and state (an honored Christian position) is not the same thing as separating God and state, or morality and state, or ultimate questions from state.
I’d like to see the town be a Christian town. I’d like to see the state be a Christian state. I’d like to see the nation be a Christian nation. I’d like to see the world be a Christian world... Every society is theocratic. The only question is who’s the theo. In a secular democracy, it would be demos, the people.
Once Everyone Accepts God’s Law, “High-Handed” Sinners Could Be Executed
[Sam Harris: “Let's say your wayward son or daughter goes off to a yoga class and decides that they would really rather worship the god Shiva... And on top of that, they're gay. On top of that, they want to work on the Sabbath... Surely you can turn that child over to the authorities for killing.”] Yes. If—all right, here's... the big if that we talked about earlier... In 2 Corinthians 10, it says we don't use carnal weapons. So we don't try to institute this regime by means of knocking heads together or punishing people. That's simply not the way it comes about. Now, once it's established, once everybody acknowledges the authority of God's word and we're living in this republic and someone sins in a high-handed way, I can see that it's going to have an impact on the laws. And I can see that at some point certain high-handed rebellions would be dealt with that way. And it says in Proverbs, if you strike the fool, the simple learn wisdom. So if someone is guilty of outlandish behavior, you know, let's say a priest molesting altar boys, and in that setting that person is executed for it, that's going to steady a lot of people up.
Liberal Christians Should Be Barred From Public Office
Asked to explain where liberal Christians fit into his theoretical Christian society, Wilson said they would be excluded from holding office, later noting similar prohibitions in early American Colonial settlements such as the Massachusetts Bay Colony.
Digital Evidence Against Men Should Be Inadmissible In Court
We must begin with the assumption that digital condemnation of any man should be out of court. Digital information is highly susceptible to manipulation, and digital information is highly portable. I believe that we should begin the fight to outlaw all such information in court, and we should lead by courteously disbelieving any report made against anyone on the basis of what somebody “found on their computer.”
Child Abusers Should Be Executed—Unless They Go to Doug’s Church
Part of the reason why a society should have wise and godly men for judges is that they must determine in such cases whether the one raped is almost of age. But when we are dealing with young children who are abused by adults (pederasty, child porn, etc.) the penalty for those guilty of the crime should be death.
I would urge that the civil penalties applied would be measured and limited. I have good hope that Steven has genuinely repented, and that he will continue to deal with this to become a productive and contributing member of society.
Under Biblical Law, a Man Who Rapes an Unmarried Woman Pays a Bride Price and Can Be Made to Marry Her
If the woman is not married or betrothed, the penalty is different. The rapist is compelled to pay the bride price (which restored her position in society), can be forced to marry her, and does not have the option of divorcing her. Now this does not mean that the woman was forced into a marriage with the man who raped her. […] When a woman is unattached, the rapist is forced to restore her marriagibility, either by marrying her himself, or by providing her with a bride price. Compare this to what happens to a rapist in our society, and what happens to the women, and we see the immediate discrepancy. Biblical law is far more concerned for the sexual protection of women than is our culture, despite our empassioned rhetoric on the point.
A Nation of “Pot-Smoking Fornicators” Cannot Have Constitutional Liberty
Civic liberty is an impossibility for a people who are enslaved to their lusts. For such a people, constitutional liberties are nothing but paper liberties—the kind of thin surety that tends to satisfy slaves who need to be flattered by their masters. [...] If you want a nation of pot-smoking fornicators to be free, you want something that is not going to happen.
Pornography Should Be Prosecuted as Evidence of Adultery or Sodomy Under Biblical Law
In biblical law, numerous sexual relationships are prohibited, with civil penalties attached. When pornography is made and distributed, it should simply be used as evidence of the adultery or of the sodomy, etc.
No statements here match that search. Search all statements