Mission driven: Americanism, Christian ethics, and counter-dialectic.
The term, recently popularized by the Vice President in reference to the theology of Augustine, is suggestive of a duty to “love,” that different types of “love” are called for under different circumstances, and that certain groups of persons are to be treated somewhat dissimilarly. In the broader context, this term has arisen in the public consciousness as a direct result of captured religious institutions – effectively, Communists wearing the cross as a skinsuit – arguing that American citizens have the same duty to affect the same kind and measure of love towards illegal aliens as they do fellow citizens, or even their own kin.
As is our habit we will approach the theology of this item largely from the perspective of Scripture, and what can be gleaned from a plain reading of it.
First in our study here is God Himself. What is the proper order of love, and order of governance? It should come as little shock that for God is reserved the greatest measure of love, and the greatest deference in governance. Specifically, God is due all love and all deference. More than simply a sentiment that can be reasoned to we can pull directly from Scripture to make this case.
From Christ Himself, “YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' This is the great and foremost commandment.” Christ, in appealing to the understanding of the common worldview which divided man into several aspects, leaves no room for misunderstanding that there is no portion of oneself that mustn’t be committed, in love, to the Lord.
Going farther in specificity of hierarchy, we look to another quote of Christ, “"If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.” Now, this is among the best phrases from Scripture to help draw out an understanding of the hyperbolic language on which Scripture often leans. No, it certainly is not meant to be interpreted literally as if a commandment to “hate your mother and father,” which would be directly contradictory to plainly rendered commandments to love and honor father and mother. Instead, it exists as a statement of relative sentiment, suggesting that love for God (in the person of Christ, here) must be so great that it stands alone atop the hierarchy, with such a lead over second place loves that it is as though the lower loves are hatred in comparison. Even in hyperbole this sentiment is not for the faint hearted.
In terms of governance, God is likewise rendered the absolute ethical standard. "The one who says, 'I have come to know Him,' and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;" Therefore, there is no way to do what is right without also doing what His Law commands, and this is the scope of the deference due God in governance.
"By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and follow His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome." Therefore, to be obedient to His word is likewise the very definition of the manner in which we are commanded to love Him.
Then, we see that in the character and nature of God the concepts of a perfect love and a perfect obedience (in governance to His law) are one and the same thing and are precisely what is expected of us all toward Him. Therefore, we are to put no other gods or idols before Him, we are to love Him first, above and before all others to which love is due, and with all of ourselves, and we are to be obedient to Him in his revealed Law in all things.
This sets the absolute foci from which all other relative duties can be reasonably placed into hierarchy. God does not have exactly identical or equal commands for all things. The manner and scope which God requires of our love of neighbor and our love of enemy, our love of direct kin and our love of a distant brother in Christ, and of God Himself all differ. Similarly, our obligations on how we govern ourselves (self-governance), govern our Church, and govern our nation all differ according to his Law.
Next, let us examine the position of the individual “self” in this hierarchy. In terms of love the “ordo amoris” of the self is not remotely near the top – not only is the love due self dwarfed by the love due the Lord, but it is placed well beneath the love due both immediate family and that due other Christians, and is on an equal footing with “neighbor,” from Christ, “The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.'” So much for the cultural aggrandizement of “self-love.”
In terms of government, however, the “self” is set at the highest level of earthly duty and authority. This is, perhaps, an easy concept to overlook when combing Scripture for duties of “government,” but within the concept of “self-government,” which is just a way of saying “one’s own duty to order and manage their own life,” all commands of the Lord fall on the individual “self” to implement in their own lives, and all threat of ultimate penalty in judgement falls on the individual “self” to bear.
We can quote from Galatians, “But each one must examine his own work, and then he will have reason for boasting in regard to himself alone, and not in regard to another. For each one will bear his own load."
From First Corinthians, “But I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.”
Perhaps most powerfully from Romans, “So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God."
There is no command given to more distant government that is not first given to self-government, and the very need for a hierarchy of government is necessarily the result of the failure of self-government to reflect the will of the Lord.
Next, we examine the natural family and the duties existing under Law. Consider from before how God describes the manner in which he desires to be loved – in obedience. For God “love” is not some mere sentiment or emotion, but an affirmative duty to action and restraint. So, then, we have the quote on family duty from First Timothy, “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” This powerfully illustrates the position of immediate family, generally, in the order of love as being below God Himself, but well above both self and neighbor.
To more specificity regarding relations within the family, we quote from Ephesians, “"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her...,”, “"Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything." Here, we see God’s command for ordering relations in marriage as directly analogous to God’s own relationship to His Church. The husband is to exhibit a sacrificial, total, kind, gentle, and yet firm and disciplining love in his role, and the wife, as the Church to the Lord, is to be in agreement with the husband.
It would be exceptionally difficult to argue that any earthly duty to love could exceed that which is considered directly analogous to Christ’s for the Church, and would therefore be rightly ordered as the highest of earthly duties in love. In governance, however, this relationship necessarily takes a second-place ordering behind governance of oneself. Even in the seemingly highest-ordered duty of a wife to be subject to her husband in the manner of the Church to Christ, first that requires the wife to affect the necessary self-governance to place herself in subjection, and there are biblical examples, such as that of Abigail, that demonstrate the still-higher duty of a wife to God than to husband.
“Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER (which is the first commandment with a promise), SO THAT IT MAY BE WELL WITH YOU, AND THAT YOU MAY LIVE LONG ON THE EARTH. Here, we have a command for children to be in subjection to and honoring of their parents. This rightly places the order of love of the child-parent relationship just beneath that of the husband-wife, and the order of government relationship of children to parent as approximately equal to that of wife to husband.
Further, on duty and family governance, we quote “"Train up a child in the way he should go, even when he is old he will not depart from it." Here, we have a command to parents, an ordering of family governance, and a promise from the Lord. The raising up of Children on a path of obedience to the Lord is required, it is a placement of parents over their children in hierarchy, and it is a promise that those raised up accordingly by their parents will receive a lifelong blessing.
The Church, that body of believers in subjection to the Lord, is characterized as the “bride of Christ,” and as analogous to the husband-wife relationship in Scripture. Yet, here we find a difference in Scripture again that makes clear the distinctness and importance of the individual, as the many Scriptural passages commanding members of the Church are made directly to other members of the Church, and not merely to the whole body of the Church.
"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." Here we have one of very many commands on how a Christian ought to love another Christian. While at first glance it may appear to be directly analogous to the command to the husband towards the wife, one important aspect is omitted: sacrifice.
While explicit in the husband’s duty toward the wife, the duty of a Christian generally towards Christians does not directly implicate a self-sacrificing form of love. Also, unlike the admonition against he who does not carry out the duties of love in caring for his own family, no similar admonition is to be found regarding the duty of a Christian to other Christians generally. As such, the order of love due members of the Church is somewhat lesser than that due family.
"So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith…” commands the faithful to do good to all, but to also preferentially do good to other Christians, further bolstering that order of love.
In terms of the order of governance, the sphere of the Church, as explicit in Scripture, is quite considerable, though definitively not all-encompassing. We see a foundational duty of the Church in the Great Commission, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you..." Evangelizing, then, is a duty of the Church, and it is within the governance sphere of the Church to enforce this edict on members.
Assembling as congregants in the Church is likewise a duty that is enforceable upon members by the Church.
The care of certain categories of downtrodden persons falls within the duties of the Church, “"Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world…” as does the rebuke of sin within the Church, “"Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted."
We could go on for hours about the Scripture relevant to the duties of the Church, but importantly we must identify that while verbal rebuke, teaching and correction are always available and applicable to all Christians at all times against all persons and institutions, the enforcement of provisions within Church governance is limited to the membership of the Church, and it does not include the initiation of violence towards justice.
On this topic we must give substantial treatment to Romans 13, "Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. ...”
Romans 13 establishes, firmly, layers of hierarchy in governance. First, it establishes that God is over all. Second, it establishes a legitimate sphere of civil governance established for the purpose of justice, and it describes what a Godly civil government ought to look like, and it binds the conscience of the Christian – self-governance – to be subject to such a Godly civil government. It also prescribes a duty to civil government to wield the sword against evil on behalf of justice.
On the concept of “nation,” we quote Acts, “"and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,” as affirming nationhood as established by God. From Genesis, “"From these the coastlands of the nations were separated into their lands, every one according to his language, according to their families, into their nations…” which ties in some manner the concept of language and tribe to “nation.”
There is an important distinction to be made here in terms of duty. On one hand, there is the duty of the Christian, and on the other is the duty of a civil government. While lacking in direct evidence from Scripture that the love of a Christian towards a fellow national citizen ought to be more than or equal to that of a foreign Christian, there is certainly a practical implication for civil government towards such a reality, as a civil government is established rightly according to God’s own plan for the civil governance and justice of a geographically bounded population. In other words, while its quite possible to make the argument that an American Christian may owe a higher duty of love to an Ethiopian Christian than to an American pagan, there is no room to argue that the civil government of the American owes any duty at all to the Ethiopian. Indeed, the civil government of America owes a much higher duty of love and justice to the American pagan than to the Ethiopian Christian – that is according to God’s will and design.
Lastly, we give a short examination to the concept of “love” as directed toward “race.” The answer is that, to a Christian, there is but one “race,” and that is the human race, which each member being an image bearer of the Lord. Other constructs of the concept of “race” are but perversions and fractions of God’s use of “ethne,” and are meaningless from an ethical perspective.
Thus concludes our study of rightly ordered love, and rightly ordered government.
Counterspell Group.
Our new series (what we must then do) on tackling the very many existential threats we face, individually and thoroughly, and what minimum standards ought to look like to resolve them in our favor. Subscribe above, as most will be subscriber-only in this series (some may be spicy).
"Population Dynamics and Demographics
Low birth rates are here – this is particularly true among generational Americans – that sort with strong ties to our history, form of government, Christian heritage, and normative behaviors. This means that the character of America has been changed and is changing.
That is not merely a product of American cultural Marxists, or our subversive colleges, but to a significant degree this is due to mass immigration. While it is true that not all change is bad, and change for the good ought to be welcome, this change we have is most certainly not that. Very many of the immigrants of modern years are not coming to us from cultures that are compatible with ours, and the formation of taboo ...
How seemingly small differences will be the difference between victory and defeat.
"We appreciate the patience you, our dear listeners and readers, have had with us of late. We have delved deep into serious matters of philosophy, religion, ethics and more, and, at times, you might not have fully understood the why of it. We offered up a lot of conclusions, lots of rules and heuristics, but little of explanation that links fundamental beliefs to their very tangible effects socially, governmentally, religiously, and more.
Today, we will try to do what we probably should have started out with: explaining the consequences of ideas. In this you will come to learn why it matters what others believe, deep down, even when it appears the outworking of their ideas are in agreement with your preferred outcomes – often, there’s something dark just beneath the surface that has yet to rear it’s ugly head. More often still even the seemingly smaller differences in ideology will, when brought to their logical ends, mean the difference between...
Let’s just cut straight through the noise to find some signal. The latest war in the Middle East is being lost in faulty narratives at home. How should we view this?
“
Iran
The dialectic is at work again, and the present moment has the potential to create problems going forward. Where the on-the-ground reality of the Middle East is Israel versus Iran, the narrative “reality” of the American information environment has little to do with Iran at all, as it is represented by the pro-Israel versus anti-Israel contingent. This is an important distinction, as the gap between the narrative environment and reality means that the reality of the situation is not being adequately addressed, and the narrative is causing people to take a position on Iran that has nothing to do with Iran at all, but only which “side” they take on Israel.
This represents a classic master-slave dialectic, where the Zionist side is held up as representing “the West,” and the ant-Zionist side as the anti-colonialist, anti-oppressor of ...
How the Biden Regime Brought the War Home.
Apologies for the delay. Due to the size of the file and technical restrictions on this platform please find our latest video here:
With the release of the newly declassified internal strategy and policy document on “countering violent extremism” from DNI Tulsi Gabbard we have an opening to provide in-depth analysis on “how the sausage was made” in terms of turning America into a authoritarian police state, targeting decent Americans as “terrorists” and “extremists,” and more.
We undertake this analysis with the purpose of tying it all to the prior lessons we’ve gone through with our audience. It can sometime be difficult to envision how the abstract lessons on esoterica, political theory, and more that we provide translate directly to the reality we see around us. This analysis follows on the prior analysis, years ago, ...
We are excited to announce a new messaging campaign building on (and coopting, in part) current efforts to establish “Liberty” as a bedrock American principle going forward. This effort is made possible by our subscribers. Please consider subscribing to support this and future efforts.
For those active in these social media circles you’ll likely recognize the structure of what we now present as being similar, though divergent from, other efforts that are ongoing. We undertake this for several reasons:
Liberty is, was, and ought to be a bedrock principle of Americanism.
Recent efforts have, unintentionally (we believe), alienated numerous groups of persons that ought to be allies of Liberty by undertaking a messaging effort that, on its face, transgressed foundational Christian principles due to misunderstanding in theology.
To establish “Liberty” not as a good in and of itself, but as a necessary precondition to adequately pursue goodness, and as an affirmative command from our Lord ...
