The NXR Podcast - THE FRIDAY SPECIAL - Cultural Christianity And The Rise Of An American Caesar

00:00:00 Leave us a five-star review on your favorite podcast platform.

00:00:03 I get it. It's annoying. Everybody asks, but I'm going to tell you why.

00:00:07 When you give us a positive review, what that does is it triggers the algorithm

00:00:12 so that our podcast shows up on more people's newsfeeds.

00:00:16 You and I both know that this ministry is willing to talk about things that most ministries aren't.

00:00:21 We need this content for the glory of God to reach more people's ears.

00:00:30 All right, here we are with episode two. Now, I am with Dr. Stephen Wolfe. And in this episode,

00:00:51 as promised, if you watched the first episode, first episode, if you missed it, it was a banger,

00:00:55 if I do say so myself, we talked about Aristotle and how we hold him above the scripture. And I'm

00:01:02 just kidding. But we talked about the value of Aristotle and some of the jabs towards Aristotle

00:01:07 being silly and talked about why that's important and why all the reformers quoted Aristotle. And

00:01:14 then we talked about propositional nationhood. We talked about grace, not destroying nature.

00:01:20 we talked about a lot of things, I think, that are integral to understanding this series as a

00:01:25 whole. But at the end of the episode, we promised, because we didn't get to in the first, that we

00:01:30 would come out of the gate defining nationalism and Christian nationalism. So, here we go.

00:01:36 All right. I'll try to remember it. So, I have a long version, and then I have the short version.

00:01:41 So, the long version first. So, I say, Christian nationalism is a totality of national action

00:01:47 consisting of civil laws and social customs conducted by a Christian nation as a Christian

00:01:54 nation in order to procure for itself its earthly and heavenly good in Christ. So that's the

00:02:00 definition of Christian nationalism, and I'll break it down in a moment. And then for my

00:02:08 definition of nationalism is really the same thing minus the in Christ part, and that's because I

00:02:13 think that nationalism as i define it is something natural so it's it's going to a nation as such is

00:02:19 going to seek its good and that's what we see in history i think that's also philosophically

00:02:23 grounded and with nationalism you still though if i'm remembering correctly if i correct like

00:02:29 that's what uh ricky bobby i think would say but if i'm remembering correctly i think you still say

00:02:35 to procure it's both earthly and heavenly good yeah yeah um but just without the in christ so

00:02:42 you're recognizing that even in a pagan nation, it is integral, innate to natural man, even apart

00:02:49 from regeneration, apart from grace, that God has set eternity in the minds of all people,

00:02:56 that that's part of being an image bearer, even apart from salvation, that we think of what comes

00:03:01 next. Yeah, yeah, exactly. And so, I did that on purpose, and that, yeah, like I said, that a nation

00:03:08 as a political community is going to ought to order itself to good and one of those goods the

00:03:15 highest good is heavenly the highest eternal eternal life and i think this was actually what

00:03:21 would have happened had adam not fallen which is that there would have been nations and we'll get

00:03:25 to that and i think the next episode but there would have been nations and those nations would

00:03:30 have said well we we have a are in covenant with god such that we would um attain to this highest

00:03:37 higher state of glory and that would be part of our common project as a nation um so so i think

00:03:43 when you add the christian element to christian nationalism it's recognizing that nations still

00:03:48 have in a way the same end there still is the the end of eternal life the end of glory but even if

00:03:55 you're vikings valhalla you know yeah yeah but not even like you don't even have to think of them as

00:04:00 pagan nations just thinking of a nation even a like a a pre-fallen or a nation prior to christ

00:04:06 if you had Adam not fallen. But that is also true for pagan nations. That's why every pagan nation

00:04:12 had some kind of religious element, and it was, of course, corrupt and mainly false.

00:04:17 But they still had, like you said, a sense of divinity, a sense of eternal destination,

00:04:21 and so it's built into the very nature of man to seek that highest end. But because man cannot

00:04:28 attain through the covenant of works, God, by his grace, established covenant of grace,

00:04:33 and so know that that same end is now procured only through christ and so the nation now as still

00:04:41 a natural entity uh instead of directing their people to you know the the god of nature essentially

00:04:48 which the same god is a god of grace but now it's you orient the people to eternal life in christ

00:04:54 and so that's why i add the in christ um which makes all the difference i mean it's it's only

00:05:00 Christ, but it makes all the difference to what nationalism actually is, but it still retains

00:05:06 that natural element of nations, which is you ought to order people to their highest good.

00:05:12 But the simple definition, which I usually offer first in a podcast, but the simple definition is

00:05:21 Christian nationalism is a nation that understands itself as Christian. They say,

00:05:27 we the people are a christian people and so and then in light of that saying we are christian

00:05:32 people we're then going to arrange order ourselves in light of christianly yeah we're going to do

00:05:37 christianly which is again both earthly and heavenly so you know the poor taken care of

00:05:43 in those earthly life there's good vocations there's good families there's good schools

00:05:46 that sort of earthly element that we have um that's common to us but also the heavenly aspect

00:05:52 too in christ which would i think principally like practically it would order people to the

00:05:56 the instituted church, which serves, you know, word and sacrament. So, yeah, so again, it's a

00:06:03 nation saying, we the people are Christian, and because we are Christian, we are going to, as a

00:06:08 nation, arrange order ourselves in light of that. Great. With that, I have an idea. Yeah.

00:06:15 Did you, I don't want to cut you off. Did you have a further thought? No, I was just going to

00:06:18 explicate the definition, but we don't want whatever you're... Well, let's do that, but real

00:06:22 quick um so one of the things you know that i've noticed is a lot of people when they think of a

00:06:28 christian nation and then more particularly a christian state christian government um i've

00:06:32 noticed and i think i i really do think that a lot of this you know obviously we always argue that

00:06:37 like um you know typically christians argue you know say like well this is just what the bible

00:06:42 says um but there's so many things so many presuppositions you know things that we just

00:06:46 assume because of being a product of place and time nobody's doing theology in a vacuum you know

00:06:51 we all have certain biases. And because of that, we eisegete and read into the scripture rather

00:06:58 than out of the scripture, certain principles. One thing that I've noticed, and I'd really be

00:07:02 curious your thoughts on this, but a game changer for me of sorts was I thought that a Christian

00:07:09 state, you could almost define a Christian state as small state, small government. It's small, 0.96

00:07:17 Like, what does it mean for the government to be Christian? Well, it means, you know, 1.00

00:07:20 leave my guns alone and get off my lawn. You know, it means, I've noticed that I think in

00:07:28 the last century or so, I think conservatives, and then arguing more particularly from conservatives

00:07:37 to Christian conservatives, have naturally, as they thought about government and thought about

00:07:41 a nation as it pertains to the government and the state, like libertarianism has been conflated

00:07:50 with Christianity, in a sense. So like a lot of the theonomists have, you know, like, so what does

00:07:55 it mean for us to have a Christian state? Well, they would, the theonomists in their defense would 0.94

00:08:00 say that the state conceives of itself as, you know, as overtly Christian and uses Christian

00:08:06 language and Christian laws, but it's more than just that. It's not just behaving Christianly.

00:08:11 They would make an argument further and say that the Bible doesn't just tell us what is just in

00:08:20 terms of legislation, but also really, really, really constrains the parameters and the

00:08:25 jurisdictions. And I remember one of the things, when I first read your book, the first time I read

00:08:30 it a couple years ago, one of the few things, because I agreed with most of it from the start,

00:08:37 but one of the few things that I strongly disagreed with, and now I think I still disagree

00:08:41 with, but maybe not as strongly, and I'd be curious to hear your take, but you argued from

00:08:47 the basis of permissibility, and one of the things that you argued was, yeah, we could have government

00:08:52 schools. They just need to be Christian. Whereas the theonomists would say, hell no. And we would 1.00

00:08:59 get that, you know, and obviously we're always going to say that it's a biblical argument,

00:09:03 but is it, you know, and so, you know, but the defense of the theonomist would be Ephesians 6,

00:09:07 fathers, do not exasperate your sons, but train them up in the paideia, you know, the curriculum

00:09:12 of the Lord. And so we would say, well, that, you know, that we have sphere sovereignty and

00:09:17 the, you know, the sphere of the family, education has been given to the family, not to the state. 0.94

00:09:22 And so, so a Christian government school would be an oxymoron. To be Christian would be to, 0.94

00:09:29 relinquish it from the government, and it would have to be done by the household. Thoughts? 0.99

00:09:35 Yeah. I mean, first, back to the idea of a small or limited state. I mean, a limited state doesn't

00:09:40 have to be small, because within the limitations of their powers, they could actually have a very

00:09:44 big government. Big military. So small and limited are not the same thing, but that's just, that's

00:09:50 not me making a point about what I think, but that's just, anyway. Yeah, I would say that the

00:09:55 concept of a limited state is actually, I would say it's a development less of, you know, direct

00:10:02 application from the Bible, and it's just a direct, it's a product of Western constitutionalism over

00:10:09 time. If you read 16th, 17th century works on political theory, people today will call it

00:10:16 statist or totalitarian or whatever, but that was just the common notion that the Christian prince

00:10:21 actually has a lot of power. There was still constitutional limitations, but the limitations

00:10:26 on government was a product of, you know, 17th, 18th, 19th century Western constitutional

00:10:35 development. And in most cases, at least among the big names in that, they were not doing exegesis.

00:10:43 I mean, you can just take Madison, Jefferson, our own founders were not doing a lot of exegesis when

00:10:48 they conceived of a limited government, they were appealing to people such as Pufendorf to,

00:10:55 what's his name, that French, I always forget his name, the French legal theorist of the 18th

00:10:59 century. It'll come to me in a dream. I'm not going to be able to help you. I'm sorry.

00:11:03 Some people are screaming right now because they know it, but-

00:11:05 Call CJ.

00:11:06 Or John Locke, what?

00:11:07 Call CJ.

00:11:08 Yeah, yeah, he'll know. Yeah, that guy's a prodigy. But yeah, I think that was a development,

00:11:13 and that doesn't mean it's bad. I just think it's a, and there's actually one criticism of my book

00:11:18 from my friend Glenn Mutz. He's like, where's the Western constitutionalism in your book? Like you

00:11:21 talk about the Christian prince as having this broad abstract power, but in our own tradition,

00:11:27 we've curtailed that power over time. So that's what I'd say. That doesn't mean it's wrong. I

00:11:31 would just say, hey, if you like limited government, then you should see it as an

00:11:36 inheritance from your Western tradition. And now states around the world are limiting their

00:11:42 government because they've seen the prudence of it. And it's actually good for economic and other

00:11:48 areas. So anyway, so that doesn't mean it's just, it's a product of your own civilization.

00:11:54 And in terms of like government schools, I think that like the civil society is composed of

00:12:01 households. And even if education is originally a duty of parents, as a collection of households

00:12:09 in a civil society, that society can decide that actually the best way to train young people is to

00:12:16 have government-funded schools. Now, whether or not that's prudent or wise or, you know, at the

00:12:22 very least, I think it's permissible. So even if a duty originates in the household, that doesn't

00:12:28 mean it can't be devolved to the state. Early on in America, the colonies, they even had

00:12:34 wrote it into legislation and their, you know, their individual towns and constitutions

00:12:39 that anytime a village got to, I think a certain number of people like 200 or 500 or something

00:12:45 like that, they would have to have a schoolhouse for, you know, and, and, and if it got to,

00:12:51 you know, a few hundred more than two schoolhouses and it was, it was a rule. And, and, you know,

00:12:58 it's, it's funny because today, you, you know, a lot of conservative Christians, like for us,

00:13:02 you know, we don't use state schools, our family. But we're not homeschool exclusive. We actually

00:13:08 do use a classical school for our children and their education. And then we, of course, as parents

00:13:13 are primarily educating them and use the school as a supplement, but they're learning a lot in

00:13:18 their school. And we think that's fine. But my point is that, you know, a lot of, when you think

00:13:22 of deeply conservative Christian people, a lot of them are homeschool exclusive and would probably

00:13:29 be shocked. You know, a lot of them are probably unaware that American colonies had that as a rule

00:13:34 that, you know, and they saw that as, and these are people who are in many ways more deeply

00:13:40 Christian than we are today, and they didn't see that as a contradiction. Yeah, I think modern

00:13:46 public schooling is universal, so all children have to go to it, but in the past, the idea was

00:13:53 that, I mean, you see this, I was just reading this the other day, just in Reformed political

00:13:58 treatises, they would say, yeah, the prince should institute public schools. But they meant public

00:14:05 schools not universal for everyone, because some kids still have to work the farm with their father,

00:14:10 but for the training of the future leaders of that society with teachers who were well-qualified and

00:14:17 knew their material. Kind of like Plato's Republic, a little bit. Yeah, not exactly, but yeah, close

00:14:22 enough. I mean, there were people who were... Not selected from birth and separated from their

00:14:28 parents, but, but yeah, not a community of women, but I'm just kidding. But, but, but yeah, there,

00:14:33 there was a, yeah, there was that mentality. So it would originate with the family. And I think

00:14:38 that, and the way, yeah. So the, the question of like, you have to distinguish modern education,

00:14:42 which is compulsory for every single child, that very much fits with our, the, the, the modern

00:14:52 economic system, parents living mainly, working outside of the home, usually not on the farm,

00:14:57 don't need their children to do any sort of productive household labor.

00:15:01 So I'm not saying yes or no on a modern public education system.

00:15:05 But, I mean, if you do agree that it's okay to send your kid to a private school,

00:15:09 you are, in a way, devolving that responsibility.

00:15:12 And usually they have in local apprentices, like, principles built up into the school and all that.

00:15:16 And it's family-oriented and all that.

00:15:18 So there's good ways to do a Christian school that involves the parents.

00:15:22 It's covenantal-oriented, all that.

00:15:23 so i i mean my kids are in a private school um we're involved in that school it's a great school

00:15:29 um but most people are willing like you know you're willing to um send your kids someplace i

00:15:35 think that i think the problem is because we all outsource that's part of what persuaded me

00:15:40 yeah right even if you're homeschooling did you write all the curriculum yourself

00:15:43 you know like like we're always outsourcing like so you know like produce you know and food like

00:15:51 provision belongs to the household the government's not supposed to supply for all of our basic needs

00:15:55 and universal you know housing and things like that um but i don't i don't hand grow all my food

00:16:02 i use grocery stores i'm you know so like in the same way that even if you're a homeschool exclusive

00:16:08 family you you probably have selected and identified you probably didn't write it all

00:16:12 yourself selected curriculum written by somebody else that you've looked at and and have approved

00:16:18 but you're utilizing you know tools and resources so at some at some level as your children in your

00:16:25 home are learning in you know fourth grade arithmetic um they're still being taught by

00:16:31 someone else at some level every time they open their math book and and read and so yeah and i

00:16:37 think for like so private schools are different than government schools in the sense of uh how

00:16:42 they're funded. And I would say, I think Americans in particular have this very adversarial

00:16:48 relationship to civil government, which I'm not criticizing that in itself, but it is unique to

00:16:54 us. And that would lead people to then think that, well, we shouldn't put our kids in these schools.

00:17:00 We shouldn't have these kinds of schools. But most societies really don't have a problem with

00:17:05 the principle of, hey, you know, this is our community and these are our people and we want

00:17:10 to have government-funded schools. And I think one thing Doug Wilson criticizes public schools

00:17:17 is the idea that you're using another person's money for the education of another child. But

00:17:22 again, if you're in a community, you individually have an interest in people around you being

00:17:28 educated. So in principle, I don't see anything wrong with some of your tax dollars going to that

00:17:33 so that your community, as a good for the community, people have their education. Of course,

00:17:38 if it's a lousy school, I understand the argument, but, um, in principle, it could be a good school.

00:17:43 And so I see nothing wrong with that. And, and you're, and you should be oriented to the public

00:17:47 good, not just your own private good. So if you are a family that, and for whatever reason, don't

00:17:52 have children, you should see your resources as something you give up to the community for the

00:17:58 benefit of that community. And hopefully it's done well. Yeah. Because especially, you know,

00:18:02 when this is its own, you know, situation and problem, but social security, it's like, okay,

00:18:08 well, we don't have kids, so what concern is it to us? Or if you're very wealthy, too. You don't

00:18:14 need Social Security. That's true. But for a lot of people, it's like, well, somebody's going to

00:18:19 have to continue society when you're retired and unable to contribute. And even if you don't have

00:18:25 children of your own, you have a vested interest in the next generation not being as dumb as stumps. 1.00

00:18:31 Yeah, and in that case, too, it's like, well, maybe Social Security is not the most efficient 0.98

00:18:34 way of bringing it about, but that would be a matter of the wisdom of policy, not a matter of

00:18:41 the principle. The principle is that, in principle, it seems permissible that you would give up some

00:18:46 of your resources so that the sick or the poor or whatever can then be taken care of. And if you

00:18:54 love your community and you see the government using tax dollars effectively for the good of

00:19:01 your community, that shouldn't be problematic. I mean, the issue is going to be when it's

00:19:07 inefficient and they're fraudulent or something like that. But that's, again, it's a question

00:19:12 of policy and wisdom, not a question of the principle behind it. Right. The only reason I

00:19:15 brought it up is, again, just small versus big and evil versus good. I think that that

00:19:23 was conflated for me, and a lot was assumed instead of actually real objective exegesis

00:19:30 from the scripture, a lot of it I realized that I was assuming, because exactly what you said,

00:19:34 you said it in passing, but I know the argument that you're making. I've made it myself that

00:19:39 you can have a small government in terms of its fear of, you know, its involvement in terms of

00:19:48 jurisdictions. Like, okay, so government is not going to be involved in whatever markets or,

00:19:54 you know, whether it's economic or whether it's education. But that doesn't mean that the

00:19:59 government is going to be small. It just means it's going to be particularized. But within its

00:20:05 particularities, it could very easily be massive. And we know even from Romans 13, one of the

00:20:13 purposes of government, chief purpose is to punish evildoers and promote the good. And I think that

00:20:18 that would include the heavenly good as well. And so when you think about, well, what all does that

00:20:23 entail, the argument can be made from principle, it could entail a very great deal. And you could

00:20:30 have still a very large state that's a Christian state that's completely exited some spheres,

00:20:36 but in the spheres that it actually has been assigned is very involved and has lots of

00:20:41 employees and they just happen to be Christian and do things efficiently.

00:20:46 Yeah. This is not me questioning the American tradition of limited government, to be clear.

00:20:51 I just think that we should view, instead of having this universal conception of what

00:20:56 civil government ought to be, that it has to be limited, it has to be small, it has

00:21:01 to be this way everywhere.

00:21:02 We should just enjoy our own political tradition, which, you know, I like small government,

00:21:08 I like limited government, I like fewer regulations, but the Nordic countries like higher tax rates

00:21:14 so that they can have free health care.

00:21:16 And they see, in large part, they see half their taxes, half their income going as taxes as a way

00:21:22 of contributing to their national good. And I'm not going to question them on that. Like there

00:21:27 might be inefficiencies built into that. It's a question of policy and wisdom. But I'm okay with

00:21:33 other people being different than we are. And instead of universalizing our political tradition,

00:21:39 we should just be thankful that we have what we have and they can have what they want and we leave

00:21:43 each other alone and mind each other's business. And that's been helpful for me because there is

00:21:47 really a dynamic difference between exporting our sacred democracy versus exporting the Christian

00:21:54 faith. Like we do actually want to see nations Christianized, but I think that we conflated it

00:22:01 and said, you know, like for us to, you know, to extend the blessings of liberty, you know,

00:22:06 around the world, it became a lot less of hero Christian principles that you should adopt. And

00:22:12 became more so the specific forms of government that are unique to the American tradition and

00:22:18 you know slapped a bible verse on them and and made it a moral issue when there might have been

00:22:24 some more permissibility I mean this is what one reason why I didn't particularly care for some of

00:22:27 the arguments in Doug Wilson's mere christendom book because he equated christian state like you

00:22:32 did kind of the intro to this which was that it is small limited there's you don't have this or

00:22:38 that. You don't have government schools, you have this and that. And I don't think that if

00:22:43 a country that has government schools converse to Christ, all of a sudden they're going to find

00:22:50 this moral necessity of closing down their school system. They should Christianize their school 0.99

00:22:56 system. And we shouldn't have these kind of political burdens built into the gospel. I mean,

00:23:01 certainly there is correction that's going to happen. There's going to be idolatry is going

00:23:05 to be cleared and other moral errors. But in terms of like the political life and the system

00:23:10 that they have in place, that doesn't have to be radically transformed into some ideal laissez-faire,

00:23:16 you know, tiny government institution. So, yeah. All right. So go back to what you were saying.

00:23:23 So you said you were going to extrapolate a little bit more and expound upon the definition

00:23:29 of Christian nationalism. Yeah. So the first part is a totality of national action. Now that's

00:23:34 probably the most confusing part in the whole definition but what i mean is that like in terms

00:23:39 of nationalism uh what it is is that we that even the mundane like the the extraordinary and the

00:23:45 ordinary come together to make a nation great so to procure for yourself your earthly and heavenly

00:23:53 good you have to do the mundane things you have to get up brush your teeth and go to work you know

00:23:58 you have to make your bed you got to make your bed you know a mother has to you have to you have

00:24:02 to change diapers, these very kind of mundane things. The basic things that we do all the time

00:24:09 is part of your national life. You loving your children, you reading to your children. These

00:24:15 are things that we all do, at least ought to do, and that contributes to your national greatness.

00:24:21 And it even makes it possible that your kids can do great things in the future because you had

00:24:26 these mundane, ordinary things. So it's a totality because all these things work together.

00:24:32 it's like i use the analogy of a soccer team only maybe one or two guys usually score the goals

00:24:38 but without the defensive players who don't get the glory usually you can't win the soccer match

00:24:44 and so when we say the team wins we don't say the individual who scored the goal wins we say

00:24:50 the team wins and so it's a totality it's all the different actions that you do on the team

00:24:54 that then leads to the team itself winning and the same thing with with the nation so you have to

00:24:59 have from top to bottom all the things that you do in a nation um contribute to your the good of

00:25:05 the nation that's really all i mean they're interconnected interrelated you can't have the

00:25:10 extraordinary without the ordinary um and so yeah uh and then from there let's see the next part is uh

00:25:18 uh consisting of civil laws so like you know laws they they are explicit they tell us what we ought

00:25:23 to do not to do it's the civil government saying drive on this side of the road don't kill each

00:25:28 other, you know, don't punch each other in the streets. So that's the civil law. It can also

00:25:33 include, I think, blasphemy laws, Sunday Sabbath laws. It's the sort of thing like you can't go to 0.84

00:25:40 church. I'm sure some people have thought of this, but sometimes I think about this because I have

00:25:44 to drive like 40 minutes of church. But you think that it would be hard for you to focus on worship

00:25:51 in the morning if there weren't robust laws preventing people from stealing your stuff in

00:25:57 your house right right if like i think it's some guy in my house rummaging through this and that

00:26:02 in my house the fact that i don't have to ordinarily think about that it that contributes

00:26:06 to my heavenly good because now i can focus on worship on sunday right that's true for all of

00:26:11 us even if you never thought about that you haven't thought of it because there are robust laws

00:26:15 and i'd say social customs that prevent that sort of thing and you can make the same argument for

00:26:21 blue laws like there would be you know a difference between mandated church attendance

00:26:25 where the state actually forces someone to go to church versus, no, but the market will be closed

00:26:33 on Sunday to where everyone could go to church, to where you're removing an obstruction or

00:26:38 distraction. And there's even economic benefits with that as well. The Sabbath and the aspect

00:26:45 of ceasing from work, and not only the aspect of the opportunity to devote yourself to a day of

00:26:50 worship, but just the rest portion of the Sabbath and ceasing from work is kind of like in an

00:26:58 economic sense can function as the great equalizer. When you think of mom and pop businesses and

00:27:05 things like that and trying to compete with Leviathans like Amazon, one of the difficulties

00:27:11 is that Amazon never sleeps. It's 24-7 constantly without, you know, once you get to a certain

00:27:19 level, it's almost, there's a monopolizing effect of that, you know, you're king of the hill and

00:27:26 everybody else is at an immediate disadvantage to be a competitor strictly by resources. And one of

00:27:33 the chief of those resources being time, that, you know, like a family business cannot operate

00:27:39 24 hours a day, seven days a week in the way that some large corporation can. And so the Sabbath,

00:27:45 But, you know, it's, you know, chief function would be providing opportunity to worship, providing, you know, the nation's citizens with a day of rest and recalibration, but then also even economic, at least, you know, potentially in theory, there could be the potential of economic equalizing effects, you know, for small businesses and opportunity.

00:28:05 I think, yeah, when people ask me what laws would you want, I think having blue laws, the Sunday Sabbath laws, really is the first thing that happened.

00:28:16 It's not blasphemy laws, it's not laws against heretics, because that really defines for community what it is.

00:28:25 That we are a Christian people because we set aside that day of worship, and it's a very public thing.

00:28:31 You drive around and all the ordinary commerce is closed down.

00:28:34 I mean, there's emergency and this and that that are permitted, but it really, it sets

00:28:39 the ethos of the community, which is we're here, we're Christian people, and this is

00:28:44 a central act of a Christian is the worship of God.

00:28:48 It is that Sunday attendance.

00:28:51 It is worshiping inwardly, outwardly, the triune God on Sunday, and so if a community

00:28:57 that does that, they're really establishing themselves.

00:28:59 It not only signals outside of itself, but also inside itself, what we are and what we do.

00:29:06 Even Chick-fil-A. It's like, oh, it's a Christian business. But one of the first 0.99

00:29:10 things you think of is, it's a Christian business because it closed on Sunday. 0.86

00:29:14 Right. Yeah. And just imagine the effects that it would have on a community.

00:29:20 Yeah.

00:29:21 Someone who is not attending church in that situation would be, in a way, out of place.

00:29:26 Right.

00:29:26 you're not participating in what this community is right and so it is a draw i think also just to

00:29:32 attend worship as well i also also the distractions of it too it's very easy for you to then

00:29:38 now you go off i mean i i think people who go off it's very common to go out to restaurants

00:29:43 and what you're doing is you're creating economic demand for people precisely to miss church so the

00:29:48 cooks are not in church the waitresses waiters are not there that you're not relieving your

00:29:52 servants, so to speak. And there's a sense in which these people, they may not be private

00:29:57 household servants seven days a week, but public servants of sorts that you're refusing them

00:30:05 the ability to worship. And people would say, well, their choice. Usually in most companies,

00:30:11 you could say, hey, I attend worship on Sunday. I can't work on Sunday. And I think that's probably

00:30:15 generally the case. But how are you loving those people who are kind of nominal Christians? This

00:30:21 is one of my criticisms of like modern two kingdoms and others is that they tend to have

00:30:26 this separation. It's like, oh, we have it together. We're going to church and everyone

00:30:29 else, they're just pagans. It's true that nominal Christians are not Christians, but they also are 0.98

00:30:35 kind of on the way. There are those, they do often assent to the propositions of faith and

00:30:43 they just need a sort of nudge. And now they can encounter the gospel in church. But when you

00:30:49 when you create economic incentives for them to work, you're actually preventing that from

00:30:53 happening. Right. And not even just they need you to provide a nudge, but at minimum, they need you

00:30:58 to not provide a hindrance. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Agreed. Okay. Anything else with the definition

00:31:05 of Christian nationalism? So now we go to like social custom. Okay. Social custom is a very

00:31:11 broad category of not just customs of festivals, but just broadly speaking, our way of life.

00:31:18 So the way that we communicate our language, the way we greet each other, the way we say goodbye, the way we eat, all the various manners that we have that we don't even know that we're doing, but they actually have a lot of meaning and communicate a lot of overthinking, all sorts of things that build mutual understanding.

00:31:38 If you go to a foreign country, even if they speak your own language, there still is that

00:31:43 sort of barrier. 1.00

00:31:44 You in their space don't exactly know what to do.

00:31:47 You're disoriented.

00:31:49 Even if you have the best intentions and they have the best intentions, there's still a

00:31:52 kind of disorienting effect.

00:31:54 Social customs is where you exist within the familiar.

00:31:58 You know what to do.

00:31:58 You know what they're doing.

00:31:59 You know how to coordinate.

00:32:00 You know how to work with people.

00:32:01 You know how to love people most effectively.

00:32:03 That's the social customs side.

00:32:06 And then the next part is the...

00:32:07 I thought if I moved to China,

00:32:09 I could just say I'm a Christian

00:32:10 and everything would just magically,

00:32:12 I could speak Mandarin and, you know. 0.65

00:32:14 Yeah, and this is one of the,

00:32:16 yeah, I think if like people just were,

00:32:18 I ask people like to reflect,

00:32:20 this is what philosophers do

00:32:22 and they run into polls.

00:32:23 This is how people like run into doors and stuff.

00:32:25 But just reflect on what you're doing

00:32:28 when you're doing it,

00:32:29 because we do so much that we've been socialized into.

00:32:33 Then they're doing it.

00:32:34 We're reading people unconsciously

00:32:36 by how their mannerisms what what you think they're about to do um and it really builds a

00:32:43 social a social world that we live in a familiarity that allows us to do what we do

00:32:46 um so yeah if people watching this do that like walk around the street and just reflect on what

00:32:52 people are doing that makes sense and why that would possibly be otherwise in other places

00:32:56 um so that really is like the the fundamental kind of like core of a nation and not even the

00:33:02 laws, I'd say, even the customs and social world. The next one's crucial because it's

00:33:09 conducted by a Christian people. So the Christian, as a Christian people, meaning there's a

00:33:16 self-conscious understanding of yourself as a Christian people, we the people. You're really

00:33:20 not going to have Christian laws that are robust and effective unless you have a people that at 1.00

00:33:26 least assent to the proposition. This is where I push back against, like— 0.89

00:33:30 Christian identity is what you're saying. Yeah, yeah. So, yeah, this is where I'd push back 1.00

00:33:34 against the idea of revivalism. So I think you can have effective Christian laws and customs

00:33:38 among people that are not actually regenerate. So they can assent to it, they can operate in it,

00:33:44 they just don't have, they don't exercise true internal faith. Right. And this is why I think

00:33:48 you can establish Sabbath laws apart from a sort of revival. You just need people to 0.97

00:33:52 assent to it because, yeah, we're Christian, but they actually are not.

00:33:56 um but yeah you have to have that like self-identity as christian we we are christian

00:34:01 um from from which all those others flow and i think we in the west have enjoyed

00:34:07 a christian civilization that many people are not christian just imbibed like you even have

00:34:13 atheists saying oh i wish you know we are a christian civilization and we should retain

00:34:17 some of that because it's good for i think like richard dawkins says that i'm a cultural christian

00:34:21 Elon recently said, I'm a cultural Christian. I think, I mean, that's a separate topic. I think

00:34:26 they kind of mean liberalism on that. They kind of mean Christian liberalism, which- That's true.

00:34:31 But it does actually, but regardless of what they mean, I don't think we should get too excited

00:34:36 about that because they mean something distinct, but it does mean that there is, they do recognize

00:34:42 is that foundationally, there is a Christian identity

00:34:48 that has led to our constitutionalism.

00:34:53 I think it's two things.

00:34:54 So you're right, definitely right about the liberalism piece.

00:34:57 So part of it is they're conflating Christianity

00:34:58 to what is not innately Christian, namely liberalism.

00:35:02 So when they say, I'm a cultural Christian,

00:35:03 part of what they're saying is, I enjoy liberalism,

00:35:07 aka, I'm a cultural Christian,

00:35:09 meaning I like culturally being able to keep my sin. That's distinctly in opposition to 0.61

00:35:15 Christianity. So that is part of like, when Richard Dawkins says, I'm a cultural Christian,

00:35:19 he immediately follows it up by saying, and I love all the rights of the sodomites. 1.00

00:35:24 So you're right. That's true. But he also said, in addition to, you know, not just saying I, 1.00

00:35:29 what I love about cultural Christianity is all the gay pride parades, you know, but to be fair,

00:35:34 He also made one other, you know, description. I think he mentioned, if I'm remembering the

00:35:40 interview correctly, he also mentioned church bells as opposed to prayer sirens five times a

00:35:47 day where everyone kneels down and faces the East, you know, with, you know, like Muslim Sharia law.

00:35:53 And so I would say that like, yeah, some of what they mean is because they're cultural Christians, 0.90

00:35:58 not true Christians. They're unregenerate. They don't really love the Lord Jesus Christ. 0.94

00:36:02 They're using, you know, cultural Christianity as a way to carve out, you know, liberalism and just 0.89

00:36:07 make quarter for their sin. True. But I also do think that there is something that I think Richard 1.00

00:36:12 Dawkins would probably also say, and I like Christmas. And I like church bells. Yeah. You

00:36:18 know, and I like that. I prefer cathedrals to mosques. I prefer church bells that have a pleasant 1.00

00:36:26 sound, and not a demanding implication, but a pleasant sound and a warmth invitation rather

00:36:34 than a demanding a siren that says, bow, submit. I mean, that's what Islam is, submission. 0.98

00:36:40 And the Christian holidays are hopeful and jubilant. And so I do think that there actually 1.00

00:36:49 is, even for someone like Richard Dawkins, who's devoted his life to killing the Christian God and 0.96

00:36:53 now regretting it, you know, because he realizes, oh, I'm very intelligent, but I'm also a retard. 0.86

00:37:00 So he realizes that, you know, he's devoted his life to killing God and turns out he actually 0.96

00:37:04 needed God. But what he really wants is not Christianity. He just wants enough Christianity

00:37:09 so that he can go on sinning with impunity. There's that. But I also do think that even 1.00

00:37:14 for a guy who hates God, like Richard Dawkins, there is a recognition beyond just the liberalism

00:37:20 and the quarter for sin, that the Christian religion is the superior religion. It is the

00:37:26 most hopeful, the most beautiful, the most triumphant, the most jubilant. It's the warmest,

00:37:31 happiest, even in terms of architecture and beauty, it's just the Christian religion is 1.00

00:37:37 superior. Yeah. It is. Yeah, yeah. And I think he wants to go back to a time in which the elites 1.00

00:37:45 did not actually believe, but the elites realized that they're in a Christian civilization. Actually,

00:37:52 the Christianity of the masses is what makes this place delightful. And he wants to go back to that, 0.65

00:37:58 which I think, once your elites stop believing, I think eventually you're going to get in exactly

00:38:03 what we have today. And eventually the masses, you know, they stop believing, then there's

00:38:09 subversion, and then the masses end up leaving it. So, but yeah, so I think what we need is we

00:38:15 need elites who actually believe the faith rather than what we've had. But yeah, there is, I think

00:38:21 you mentioned church bells. That's really interesting that as opposed to the call for

00:38:25 prayer, like a demand. A siren versus a chime. Even that says so much. Yeah, but the church

00:38:31 bells, they represent, like you said, this kind of invitation, which really only works

00:38:38 in an orderly society with a sense of duty.

00:38:42 Yes.

00:38:42 You know, a self-regulated, self-governed society

00:38:46 that's very unique to the Anglo-Protestant tradition

00:38:49 that developed constitutionally

00:38:51 and also kind of culturally.

00:38:54 And that will not often work in other places.

00:38:58 I mean, there are church bells

00:38:59 in all across Europe and all that.

00:39:00 So there is that sense.

00:39:02 But yeah, it's like, yeah, it's a very interesting,

00:39:04 but it presupposes a society

00:39:07 that has inculcated this self-governance, dutiful, high trust. I'm being invited, but also

00:39:15 instinctively I go. I'm being invited, not summoned, but invited. And yet on the flip side,

00:39:25 an invitation is all I require in order to oblige. And that's a perfect example of what I mean by

00:39:32 the best of social customs, where there is that element of liberty, but there's also that element

00:39:39 of duty. There's ordered liberty. And ordered liberty in a Christian state is going to be

00:39:45 invitational and effective. The invitation is going to be effective.

00:39:50 Because even the blasphemy laws, and we've already established that we would want to see 1.00

00:39:55 the fourth commandment legislated before the third, or the second as well. But even the 0.98

00:40:01 blasphemy laws, even that is not a summoning to duty. It's what's forbidden, not what's demanded.

00:40:09 The blasphemy laws are not, you must do this. There is no, I mean, that's one of the stupidest 1.00

00:40:16 objections to your book was like when people say forced conversions. And I'm just like, 0.99

00:40:22 are you joking? Yeah. I say about a dozen times that you, but yeah, it's,

00:40:27 There's a difference between forced conversions, which the reality is that even if you were

00:40:32 advocating for forced conversions just from a theological standpoint alone and both of us being

00:40:37 reformed, you can't in the objective sense, force a conversion. Only the Holy Spirit can change the

00:40:43 heart of men. And so there's no way to do that by the sword. Only the sword of the Spirit that

00:40:48 cuts through bone and marrow. And that's something that the Spirit has to do. But there's a dynamic

00:40:54 difference between forced conversion, mandated obedience versus laws that don't obligate,

00:41:05 but laws that merely forbid. And even the Sabbath law is that we're not arguing for

00:41:09 mandated church attendance, but forbidden commerce on the Sabbath. And so too with

00:41:15 blasphemy laws. We're not saying mandated worship, mandated prayer time, but we're saying forbidden 0.99

00:41:23 heresies, forbidden blasphemies. And that I think is, that I don't think is just American.

00:41:31 I think that is Christian. I think that that's unique to the Christian faith is that the Christian

00:41:36 faith, the law of God is the law of liberty. G.K. Chesterton, if man will not live by 10 commandments,

00:41:41 he'll live by, you know, be forced to live by 10,000. And I mean, even in our, you know, with

00:41:45 the tax law, you know, IRS code and stuff, you know, just every year it gets bigger and bigger

00:41:51 and bigger and thousands of laws and even what Jesus was combating in his own earthly ministry

00:41:55 against the Pharisees. They were adding the traditions of men to the laws of God. And

00:41:59 there is something, I think, distinctly Christian that's not obligatory, but the Christian faith,

00:42:10 it really does set up parameters and buffers. It hedges against the cliffs out of love,

00:42:18 you know, but, uh, but it, it doesn't necessarily force everyone has to do this.

00:42:23 It simply says, uh, no one gets to do that. And, and, and the things that, that no one gets to do

00:42:29 are for the most part, um, few and far between. Yeah. Yeah. And that's the, the role of law. I

00:42:36 mean, there is a promotion of good element to law. Um, but yeah, it's not, it's not forced.

00:42:41 It's not forced conversion. You can't even, this is like the most basic Protestant, like even when

00:42:46 they were, you know, throwing anti-Trinitarians in jail, they were still saying that you can't,

00:42:51 like, you know, beat this guy or cudgel this guy into denying his position because these things

00:42:57 are a matter of persuasion. And this is just a basic Protestant, but there is a difference between

00:43:02 using the law for, like, inward reformation and outward restraint. There's a difference between

00:43:09 inward reformation, outward restraint. Inward reformation is preaching the gospel. It could

00:43:15 happen from, you know, preachers, or it can happen from a friend saying, hey, this is wrong, whatever.

00:43:21 But yes, but civil law strikes at the outward man to create the outward conditions in which

00:43:25 things would flourish. And so if you strike at blasphemy, the effect of it is that, the effect

00:43:32 of it in society, at least culturally, socially, is that actually affirming God is good. Like,

00:43:37 it's bad to deny, or that God exists. It's bad to deny the existence of God. It's good, in effect.

00:43:44 It doesn't force anyone that up, but it does create the conditions for it.

00:43:48 Nothing about social customs where there's a sense of duty.

00:43:50 There is a Dutch tradition, a Dutch Protestant tradition,

00:43:54 where after mealtime, the father would just open the Bible

00:43:59 and read the Bible and they'd pray. 0.99

00:44:00 It was a very, I mean, it seems very, people do that today who are not Dutch,

00:44:04 but that was a Dutch tradition among Protestants.

00:44:07 And even if the father was not sincere in his faith,

00:44:10 they still felt that duty as a christian dutchman to do that and so their kids then were

00:44:18 instructed in in the word through that ministry of the father so there is a place for these social

00:44:25 customs that do a lot of good um that again are not forced but it's a sense of duty built into

00:44:31 your own culture that contributes to the flourishing of of religion here's probably my

00:44:36 final question for this episode. And it's a big question, so we won't be able to tackle all of it,

00:44:43 but all those things are just, it's like a fish swimming in water. It's something we do

00:44:51 instinctively. It's inerrant to who a people are and the ways that they've been shaped by

00:44:59 their past and their heritage. But man, once it's been lost, how do you get it back?

00:45:06 Like, you know, like once that sense of a high trust society has been eroded and a sense of duty has been completely uprooted, and that's where, like, that's, you know, back to our first episode, where I kind of became increasingly persuaded, not in terms of that God can't produce revival bottom up, but when I think of what God has done, not just what he can do, but what he will do based off of what he has done.

00:45:35 And then I even think just from a practical perspective of what seems to be most likely to somehow persuade and shape and train 330 million people of different persuasions and different religions at this point and different cultures and different ethnicities and different this and different that to all get it together and somehow grab 330 million people simultaneously by the shirt collar and say,

00:46:04 get it together. Like, you know, like, aren't you a man? You know, where's your sense of duty? Like,

00:46:09 where's your integrity? You know? And that's just, when I think of the likelihood of that

00:46:14 happening, I'm like, oh man. And that's why this is, let me be very clear. I've said this and I

00:46:20 always get in trouble. That's okay. I kind of like trouble. But I'm not saying as a prescription,

00:46:28 but as a description. If I was a betting man, not saying this is what we need to do and let's

00:46:34 make it happen behind the scenes, you know, and blah, blah, blah. Like, um, but if I was just a

00:46:38 betting man, descriptively, what I think will happen. Um, I, I think if I think of even just

00:46:45 forms of government and political philosophies, the idea that you can switch from one and then

00:46:51 switch back seems unlikely, like go from a Republic devolve into democracy that then becomes 0.95

00:46:57 an oligarchy, you know, and the blessings of Liberty now is, you know, gay pride parades and 0.59

00:47:01 and transgenderism, and everybody does whatever the heck they want. And then we'll just go right 0.60

00:47:07 back to being a constitutional republic. I wonder if you shift from this to that,

00:47:15 if you have to go all the way back around the circle. Because sometimes people think in this

00:47:20 vacuum mentality that we got this constitutional republic that just dropped out of the ether

00:47:26 with the American experiment.

00:47:29 And I'm like, well, yeah, 1.00

00:47:30 but it's a Protestant Anglo people

00:47:33 and it's not divorced from its history.

00:47:36 So yeah, we got a constitutional republic,

00:47:39 but it came on the heels

00:47:41 of like a thousand years of monarchy,

00:47:43 Christian monarchy.

00:47:44 I don't think that's a coincidence.

00:47:46 And I'm not even saying,

00:47:47 and therefore monarchy is the best form of government

00:47:50 or we should somehow make that happen.

00:47:53 But the idea of the strong man,

00:47:55 You know, the idea of an American Caesar, these kinds of things, again, as a description of what may happen, not necessarily what should happen. That does seem to me as, like, how do we get the toothpaste back in the tube? How do you get a people to all of a sudden be dutiful again?

00:48:12 and and to a high trust and and i think like in terms of practically speaking what's most likely

00:48:20 to happen a strong hand seems to be one of the things that might well yeah i mean the thing

00:48:26 about that happen yeah that's actually an american argument okay i i don't think people people think

00:48:33 that we have we have a constitutional republic and that's how it always has to be um the founders

00:48:40 at the time were doing a sort of experiment in liberty. It wasn't entirely, I think it was

00:48:46 fairly conservative, but it was, in ways, was kind of novel. It was what they called an extended

00:48:52 republic. It wasn't as small. It had 13 colonies of different traditions and different identities,

00:48:59 really. People identified with their state or their colony more than they do with this broader

00:49:03 national project. So there was this kind of experiment going on, and they said that this

00:49:08 is only going to last if we are immoral and religious people right like we've heard that

00:49:13 quote a thousand times but what they mean is that there's a certain there's something about the

00:49:18 people that makes this experiment possible the government is suitable to the people and if it's

00:49:23 no longer suitable to the people i i don't yeah i i don't see anything in the american tradition

00:49:29 and i'm not as well versed as you by any stretch of the imagination but i don't see anything

00:49:33 glaring off the page in the american tradition that would say that if this form of governance

00:49:38 is no longer suitable for the people

00:49:39 for whatever reason,

00:49:41 too bad you still have to do it anyways.

00:49:43 Right.

00:49:44 Well, I mean,

00:49:44 and why do you institute,

00:49:46 why do people institute civil government?

00:49:49 Well, for their good.

00:49:50 Right.

00:49:50 For the good of themselves

00:49:51 and their posterity.

00:49:53 If that system no longer

00:49:54 actually produces good

00:49:55 and it's producing evil,

00:49:57 then you have to wonder,

00:49:59 is there something wrong with the system?

00:50:00 Does the system need to be amended or changed?

00:50:02 If the law brought you here,

00:50:03 of what use was the law?

00:50:05 Yeah, it's a deeply American argument.

00:50:06 This is where people say, oh, that's anti-American. Well, no, it's not. It's actually

00:50:12 deeply American. Now, that's not to say that we actually need to rewrite the Constitution or have

00:50:18 this strong man or whatever it is, but it's also false to claim that it's anti-American,

00:50:25 to start wondering about, given our situation, given our composition, given the moral degeneracy

00:50:30 of society is our political system appropriate right now for these people in this world right

00:50:37 it's perfectly legitimate question and the idea of a regime devolving into other regimes is just

00:50:42 classical politics that's what plato said it's what aristotle said it's what cicero said everyone

00:50:46 said that you have a certain political system something about it changes or something something

00:50:53 you know some element of it goes out of whack then it's going to devolve it's going you know

00:50:58 you know, monarchy is going to turn into tyranny. Aristocracy turned oligarchy. Oligarchy will turn

00:51:04 democracy or whatever. This idea of devolving. And so I think it's a totally legitimate question. 0.89

00:51:10 I think it's one thing that we should think about. I don't think there's a lot of

00:51:15 openness among American people to change our political system as it is now.

00:51:20 But certainly the way that the different branches operate, they are clearly adjustable.

00:51:26 um the executive power right now is actually very powerful yes um and a lot of people don't like

00:51:33 that people would think that it's un-american if a president began to actually take upon himself

00:51:38 the powers that actually constitutionally are afforded to him i've looked into this and like

00:51:42 or mcintyre has done some good stuff on this if a president began behaving the way that uh he

00:51:48 actually is is actually permissible to him even with our current structure as it exists on paper

00:51:52 people would view it as like, he's an authoritarian, he's a tyrant. This is not

00:51:58 American. He's usurped his powers. But really, the presidency has been relegated to a fairly 0.94

00:52:04 puny, weak, impotent position. But even by our constitution, without any changes at all,

00:52:11 as it currently stands, affords the president far more power than we've seen.

00:52:17 Well, yeah. And the legislature has the power to create departments and then essentially give the executive department powers through that department. And that's why a lot, like the executive branch, like we talk about all these lettered agencies, they're under the executive branch for the most part.

00:52:38 Weaponizing the FBI, you know, those kinds of things.

00:52:40 So there, you know, yeah. And there's a lot of like, you know, there's disputes about this and I don't know enough about it to have any definitive answer. But the fact is that the there's ways that our political system can operate in which that that the legislature can remove powers from the executive. They can give powers executive. They can delegate these these authorities. So there is actually a leeway, I'd say, constitutionally for for these things. But it's just a mess right now. Legislature is pathetic.

00:53:09 um but uh and there is the fourth branch of government with the administrative state the the 0.89

00:53:14 the department agencies which operate outside of anyone's jurisdiction i mean it should be the

00:53:20 executive's decision to fire civil servants right right that that should be in principle that if he

00:53:26 is in charge of them he should be able to manage them pretty directly yep especially in a time when

00:53:32 when the legislature is so weak and uh and unable to pass legislation and essentially cannot govern

00:53:39 um it would make sense to have a strong executive yeah but uh but anyway among conservatives i i

00:53:45 don't know the the full answer on that but i just think there are ways in which the broader picture

00:53:50 going back to what i originally said would you would you concur that um in terms of the toothpaste

00:53:56 going back in in the tube not as a prescription this is what we should do and let's make it happen

00:54:00 but in terms of a descriptive likelihood does do you agree that um it seems as though for us to get

00:54:08 back to a high trust society and a sense of duty and these kinds of things and self-governance

00:54:14 that because we've devolved to such a degree of degeneracy, that we're probably not going to

00:54:22 voluntarily do it on our own. All 330 million people, that there's probably going to have to

00:54:26 be some kind of, seemingly, whether it objectively is or not, some kind of catastrophic political

00:54:33 event that actually would be a providential mercy of God, but might be an omelet that cracks a few

00:54:41 eggs in the process, something along those lines? Yeah. I mean, you've got the theory is that

00:54:47 nothing really ever happens, right? That's the theory. This is one of those questions that I

00:54:55 wrote the book two years ago, and then I got to the end, and I said, well, people are going to

00:55:00 want to know what do we do now right and i was at a loss i admit i was at a loss for words i didn't

00:55:05 know exactly what to do and two years later i'm still it still is that lingering question

00:55:10 of what do we do now it does seem that the path that we're on in order to kind of derail the path

00:55:18 we're on we would need at the very least um the return of great men right um and i think in a way

00:55:24 trump trump is like the most i call him the most ironic great man of history because he's kind of

00:55:29 goofy and um but i i hope that trump kind of paves the way for people to be more receptive of great

00:55:36 men and by great men you mean larger than life sort of people not barack obama was um kind of a

00:55:43 great man to a bunch of managerial liberals but i mean this type of great man that can kind of

00:55:48 transcend that um and and still work within the constitutional framework i mean trump has this

00:55:54 this persona this gravitas he has a little dance that everyone imitate now like that that sort of

00:55:59 thing where he can he can unite a people with by the force of personality right um and i think

00:56:05 that's the way to prevent the sort of you know calamity that you that you that might happen

00:56:10 right um so this is like that's why in the great prince chapter it was like we need a guy who's

00:56:15 like this world shatterer um with gravitas personality virtue and piety and i think that's

00:56:23 our our way back and we so we have to get away from and i i think this like even in our own

00:56:28 tradition we have we have great men you know love them or hate them abraham lincoln was a sort of

00:56:33 great man by definition george washington certainly was a great man right you have others as well he

00:56:38 could have been king you know yeah yeah yeah you could have and you need someone like that like

00:56:42 you need you need a guy like trump it'd be it'd be great if trump had some of the character of

00:56:47 george washington although i don't want to disparage him i mean courage to stand up and

00:56:51 say fight fight fight after being shot is a form of character and virtue yeah but you know but i

00:56:55 I think you would agree that, you know, George Washington was probably a more virtuous man than

00:56:59 Donald Trump. But the point is like, we need a guy like, like Trump, like Washington, um,

00:57:05 who, who could come in and be offered a third term, be offered to be made King and yet, you

00:57:11 know, refuse, uh, but, but who has that kind of level of gravitas and charisma with the people

00:57:17 that like, that the people would be willing to, if you, if you would have it willing to step

00:57:23 outside of the system because the strong man has come. And if he tells us to make change,

00:57:30 we'll do it. We need that kind of unifying, inspiring kind of character. And I understand

00:57:37 how in some ways that feels un-American and in a lot of ways, for Protestants and evangelicals,

00:57:44 it feels un-Christian. It's like, no, that's not how God builds the kingdom. He builds it one soul

00:57:48 at a time. And it's, it's individual person. It feels, I think it's hardest for the Baptist

00:57:54 because the Baptist, it's always been what, like, what is the Baptist thing? It's personal

00:57:59 evangelism, one, one soul at a time, you know, and that's how we change the world, personal

00:58:04 evangelism. But so many of the Baptist, you know, evangelistic efforts and world missions and all

00:58:10 these things. And David Platt, you know, is like, has proven to just be a giant colossal failure

00:58:14 in many ways. And I don't think, and I'm not saying one or the other, that one replaces the

00:58:20 other, like nothing less. I'm a pastor, so I'm not arguing anything less than expositional preaching

00:58:25 on the Lord's Day and personal evangelism, you know, throughout the week as individual Christians

00:58:29 and catechizing our kids. But I think it's also going to require, I think you're right, it's going

00:58:34 to require great men. And you look at the Bible, it was always great men. God would, you know,

00:58:38 there'd be revival in Israel, but not without, not without, you know, your Josiahs and your Davids

00:58:48 and, you know, there were always, your Gideons, you know, like mighty man of valor. There were

00:58:52 always, God has always worked through, God is not nearly as opposed to hierarchy and great men,

00:58:59 the Superman. We take offense at great men far more than God does. God seems to be

00:59:08 okay with it. Yeah. Well, I think that the opposition to great men is actually a sort of

00:59:14 feminization. Because I think men, men are, they'll contend in the hierarchy. They'll fight to be the

00:59:23 top. Right. But just as much men are willing to follow great men. That's right. They are willing

00:59:31 to be a great army officer, a great captain of an infantry company, they will follow the

00:59:41 great captain or the great first sergeant.

00:59:43 Even when they're just a rifleman or they're automatic weapon specials or whatever they

00:59:49 are, they're willing to follow those people in a battle without resentment.

00:59:54 And men will contend, but also be willing to concede.

00:59:57 Yeah, they'll fight within the hierarchy, but they're willing to obey the command of someone they respect. And in a more masculine society, that hierarchy formation can occur, greatness can be accepted.

01:00:14 and you want to be, you might, you know, eventually, you eventually accept that I'm

01:00:18 not going to be a George Washington or whatever, but you're perfectly willing to follow his

01:00:23 commands.

01:00:24 You want to be within the presence and under the leadership of greatness.

01:00:28 And that means something to you just as much as it means for someone to be great.

01:00:32 If you're small, you love to be among the great.

01:00:34 And that's because you're part of something.

01:00:36 Right.

01:00:37 And so I think if we were covered in a more masculine society, that certainly would, that

01:00:42 would come about. 0.93

01:00:43 That's a great point. 0.92

01:00:43 But within a feminized society, it's managerialism, it's credentialism, it's egalitarianism, it's a suppression of greatness. 0.98

01:00:53 Everything comes under a sort of biased process of, you know, sort of equality, equity, that sort of thing. 0.95

01:01:01 The whole world just becomes one big HR department.

01:01:04 Yeah, exactly.

01:01:05 I mean, that's really what we've become.

01:01:07 Yes.

01:01:08 And a lot of our laws reflect that fact.

01:01:10 Uh, but if, if you, if you take a, uh, even a small business that's run by men, the, the guys who are not at the, not the, the, the, the image of the company still want to be in that company because it's this, it's this environment where you support one another in your various wins.

01:01:28 even if the you have a collective win even if that one guy gets the you know like the face of

01:01:34 the win for the company right you still want to be a part of that yeah um even if you're small so

01:01:41 i think you're right that's uh so i guess the patriarchy movement is part of it but i mean

01:01:45 it is they all tie together it's not a coincidence that like it correlates in a very real way like

01:01:50 christian nationalism it makes sense that that guys who have like myself who have adopted the

01:01:56 moniker Christian nationalism also tend to be patriarchal. Yeah. You know, like, I don't see

01:02:04 any, I don't see anybody, I'm a Christian nationalist and I'm also a feminist. Yeah,

01:02:09 it doesn't make, yeah, that doesn't make any sense. But yeah, but I think that we each have

01:02:15 to identify our role. I think this is kind of abstract, but we each have to find our station

01:02:23 in life and try to contribute in ways that we, we can with this. So I'm, I'm the political theory

01:02:29 guy. I read the old books and stuff. Um, you know, you're the, you're the, you're the, um,

01:02:34 the, the video guy, I guess, the popularizer lightning rod, whatever, whatever. And then

01:02:40 you guys that you have the guy who guys who are doing the businesses who can hire the guy, um,

01:02:44 who hire people who are kicked out of the H because the HR department, like there's all

01:02:47 these different things. You can have these other guys who are keeping their heads down and going

01:02:52 through the process and then they are able to then take over the fbi or take over this and that

01:02:56 when the opportunity arises right um so each of us has to find like i know there's people who are

01:03:01 like in seminary who are on our side right who are not public about it because they are there

01:03:07 they want to raise up they want you are not guilting them and saying like all the time i

01:03:11 get guys who are in seminary or guys who are like um they're ministers in the pca you know 0.75

01:03:17 I get messages from like all the NAPARC guys saying, yeah, we're on your side.

01:03:22 Yeah. 1.00

01:03:22 Like, exactly.

01:03:23 Like, like every time a new controversy erupts, you know, with me, I get, you know, a couple

01:03:28 dozen emails of guys saying, uh, Joel, you know, you know, we've talked before, you know,

01:03:32 I can't publicly defend you, although I would love to, but, um, just know that, uh, we're

01:03:38 with you.

01:03:39 We're praying for you.

01:03:40 We're on your side.

01:03:41 We know you're right.

01:03:42 And, um, and in God's providence, the moment that we get that critical mass.

01:03:47 it's, it's kind of, it's like, it's kind of like a coup, you know, like, it's kind of like a Joe

01:03:52 Biden, you know, in the white house kind of thing. Like all of a sudden, for all we know,

01:03:56 it could have been an intern that tweeted out, you know, the, you know, the test run was I'm

01:04:00 sick. Let's see how the public responds to that tweet, you know, and then the next one is my

01:04:03 letter of resignation. And, but, but the point is throughout history, you see that again and again

01:04:08 and again, is that in a day, things can change. God takes forever to do something suddenly. And

01:04:14 so you have guys who are leading the way and they're, and it's like a flock of geese, you know,

01:04:18 somebody's got to be on point, you know, uh, bearing the resistance, but that doesn't mean

01:04:23 that he's alone. He may be bearing the lion's share of resistance, but there's all these other

01:04:27 people who are strategically placed and, and they have virtue and they're on the right side.

01:04:32 And in terms of publicly, they're relatively quiet about it. But as soon as the game changes,

01:04:37 boom, they, they're able to. Yeah. And this is how I think we should,

01:04:42 this is why I say Trump is kind of a trailblazer,

01:04:44 is that he won, he was

01:04:46 opposed to the establishment, and he won

01:04:48 twice. Yep. Three times.

01:04:50 Perhaps three times, yeah.

01:04:53 And everything changed.

01:04:54 Well, hopefully, I mean, the

01:04:56 first administration wasn't

01:04:57 as good as it could have been, but hopefully this time

01:05:00 there are signs

01:05:02 that things have changed. There's less resistance

01:05:04 now. Right, and I think there's also

01:05:06 there's acknowledgement

01:05:08 that we need institutional competence

01:05:10 and not just get these established men in place.

01:05:14 But yeah, I think people,

01:05:16 this is one thing,

01:05:17 I mean, perhaps we'll get in on this,

01:05:19 but I would say for people who are on our side,

01:05:22 who are younger guys,

01:05:25 my fear is that they would see

01:05:28 how you and I can basically say what we want

01:05:30 and get away with it

01:05:32 and not be canceled and all that.

01:05:34 And they get excited about that

01:05:36 and they do the same thing publicly,

01:05:38 But they're 18, 20, 25, 30, and they can't actually do it.

01:05:42 I mean, they can do it, but then they get damaged because they cancel.

01:05:45 I would just say that just keep, just like, you know, if that's you, don't try to do what

01:05:52 you and I are doing.

01:05:53 Just lay low, develop your friend group, try to get in the institutions, and just wait.

01:06:01 And just like a lot of people did for Trump, and you and I will keep doing what we're doing

01:06:05 well, we know you or whatever, follow us, all that, but just wait for our time.

01:06:11 Right. And the last thing I'll say on that is even the theonomists, Rush Dooney and these guys,

01:06:18 Gary North, they even acknowledged, even though they had more of a propensity towards thinking

01:06:24 that it would be a bottom-up revival instead of top-down, that it would be grassroots and just

01:06:28 50% plus one regenerate hearts and eventually electing good civil leaders with better law

01:06:35 there was all that but even within the theonomic um conception uh a lot of those guys uh got the

01:06:42 very same question that you got that you said yeah i have to admit it's kind of unresolved for me it's

01:06:46 the one burning question that's hard to answer and the theonomist got the same question and a lot of

01:06:52 them it's funny going back and reading them they put um a lot of stock in y2k like even the the my

01:06:58 point is even the theonomist recognized even with the bottom up um conception of change even they

01:07:04 recognized that there needed to be a providential catalytic event. The nothing ever happens bros

01:07:11 needed to be wrong. Something would have to happen. Now, Y2K wasn't it, as we all know.

01:07:17 But I, you know, so I'm not going to put, I think it's maybe foolish and wrongheaded 0.93

01:07:21 to put a bunch of stock and, you know, to bet the house on a particular event. But in principle,

01:07:28 in general there being some event i think that that's true i think that that's uh more than just

01:07:36 possible i think it's probable i think that that to me is the most likely scenario that it will be

01:07:41 top down um that that it will be uh you know to get that sense of duty and high trust and all

01:07:48 these things back once they've been lost and you've devolved into degeneracy it's going to

01:07:53 be a strong hand it's going to be some kind of strong man a superman that you know american

01:07:57 Caesar. And for that to happen, when you look at our current system, it's going to require

01:08:04 also some kind of, in God's providence, some kind of event, whether it's a war or whether it's

01:08:10 whatever, but some kind of catalytic, natural, or military event that transpires at the perfect

01:08:21 time where where there's the need and and when you think about it it's like that's what the

01:08:27 democrats have been doing forever that's how they try to use covet it was an event to seize more

01:08:32 power right that i mean that's always what our enemies do and for us to say for righteous

01:08:37 purposes for the glory of god and the good of his people um that maybe god might do that on our side

01:08:42 is not it's not far-fetched yeah all right well thank you for your time uh we hope you guys have

01:08:49 enjoyed this episode. Our next episode will be about, what do you think? What will we do next?

01:08:56 I don't know. I guess the nation. What is the nation? Yes. What is the nation? It's a set of

01:09:02 propositions. All right. So yeah. What is it? It won't be controversial at all. Yeah. It will be

01:09:08 very just easy. It'll be controversial. So tune into the next one. What is the nation for Americans?

01:09:14 We definitely need to define that. Thanks for tuning in.

`witch hunt`	Both words, anywhere in the episode.
`"witch hunt"`	The exact phrase.
`witch OR hunt`	Either word.
`"alpha male" -"high value"`	The first phrase, but not the second.
`(feminist OR feminism) AND (marriage OR divorce)`	Parentheses group alternatives.
`"decline civilization"~5`	Both words within 5 words of each other.

`misogyn*`	Any word starting with "misogyn": misogyny, misogynist, misogynistic…
`feminizm~1`	Words one letter off: catches typos and transcription errors.

`person:"Andrew Tate"`	Episodes where they host, guest, or are mentioned.
`host:"Glenn Beck"`	Episodes they host.
`guest:"Jordan Peterson"`	Episodes they appear on as a guest.
`mentioned:"Andrew Tate" -host:"Andrew Tate"`	Talked about on other people's shows.
`show:"Bannon's War Room"`	Episodes from one show.

`topics:abortion`	Episodes tagged with a topic (see the Topics page).
`summary:"Andrew Tate"`	Words in the episode summary. Summaries are machine-written and can be wrong.

`"great replacement" AND episode_date:[NOW-1YEAR TO NOW]`	From the past 12 months.
`lockdown AND episode_date:[2020-01-01T00:00:00Z TO 2020-12-31T23:59:59Z]`	From one year. Dates need the full time, as shown.
`"high value" AND misogyny_count:[100 TO *]`	Episodes with 100 or more sentences flagged as misogynistic. Also: hate_speech_count, toxicity_count, word_count.

The NXR Podcast - July 12, 2025

THE FRIDAY SPECIAL - Cultural Christianity And The Rise Of An American Caesar

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript