9Marks' Jonathan Leeman's Take on Christian Government and Politics

Alright guys, I was going to do a full video today, but I gotta be honest, I'm feeling a little bit rough. I'm not sure what I've got, but definitely a cold of some kind. So, I don't know, do you guys think this would be helpful if I responded to this Jonathan Leeman article?

If you haven't read it, I'll include a link to it in the description of this video. I don't know man, maybe I'm just a little too cynical for this. I just don't know, it's really hard to take this guy seriously.

I'm famous for calling him a weasel a few years ago. Right now, everyone's telling us to lower our rhetoric, calm down everyone, that's what they're trying to say. We need amnesty, we need amnesty! Patience, calm down!

I want to amp it up, I don't think he's just a weasel, this guy's a snake man, this is subversive stuff. Jonathan, this is subversive stuff, and I think you know that. I had a conversation with a brother this weekend who said he had a bone to pick with me because I so often call the things that Jonathan Leeman says stupid, and he says they're not stupid.

Jonathan Leeman knows exactly what he's doing, he's a trained subversive, and he's being subversive with the language he uses, the topics he chooses to address. I completely agree, I think he's a smart man, I don't think he's just accidentally stupid at certain times.

I think he's intentionally being subversive. I don't know, it's very hard to take seriously. This is not even the article, this is just something he pulls from the article. This is his mic drop moment that he pulled out on his Twitter.

Christian Nation, Church, and Civil Government

He says, actually a Christian nation does exist, and it's called the church. It's comprised of people from every nation on earth. Perhaps the best way to become a real Christian nationalist then is to join a church.

And so it's very clear he's trying to say, yeah, there's really no Christian nations except for the church. Whenever someone has an argument like this, try to apply their argument to the family, right?

To the family. So does a Christian family exist? Because obviously we understand that the Bible talks about us as brothers and sisters, and when we're converted, we're adopted into the family of God. We understand that, but I'm still a father, right?

I'm still a father, I'm still a husband, I'm still a child of my parents, right? The grace of God and being in God's family doesn't erase the fact that I'm still in my biological family as well. I've still got duties unto my father and mother.

I've still got duties unto my wife and to my children. There's still a way for me to be a Christian family outside of the church in particular, right? The family is a certain unit of government, and we run that as a Christian family.

The church is a separate unit of government, and we run that as a church. There's certain duties, there's certain jurisdictions that the church has that the family has. And then, of course, the civil governing authority is a third unit.

And you can be a Christian civil governing authority, and you have different jurisdictions than the church and the family does. And so there's a way to be a Christian in all of those capacities that's separate from the church, right?

We understand that. And Jonathan Lehman, this whole article, if you just keep replacing Christian nationalists with Christian family, you can see how vacuous it is. And it's very hard to take seriously.

At one point, actually, it's interesting. He addresses this whole idea about the label Christian family. And what he says is you can only call a Christian family a Christian family if every individual is a Christian.

It's just like a throwaway line. And it's like that makes absolutely no sense at all. Like if I'm a Christian father, right, and we have six kids, and then I've got a 13-year-old boy. He decides he wants to have sex with his girlfriend, so he doesn't want to be labeled as a Christian anymore.

Do I now start organizing my family differently to accommodate the non-Christian that's in my family? Do I say, okay, well, I know we used to pray and we used to sing the doxology before dinner or after dinner.

I know we used to do that, but that was when we were a Christian family, when all of us were Christians. Now that one of us isn't, we need to accommodate that, and we're not going to organize. I'm not going to be an explicitly Christian father anymore.

I'm not going to have an explicitly Christian organization of my marriage. I'm the leader of the household. My wife's the helpmate. The children are there. We're not going to organize that as explicitly Christian.

We're not going to call ourselves a Christian family because one of us isn't a Christian. Does that make any sense? It's hard to take that seriously. That's just kind of a throwaway line for him. I don't know.

It's subversive for sure. Guys, tell me. Do you think it'd be helpful for me to really just go into this completely? I'm having a hard time taking it seriously. I really am. Guys, you've got to help me out here.

I do this channel for you guys. I do it for you, so if you think this would be helpful, let me know. Let me give you another reason why I'm having a hard time taking it seriously. There's a point in the article where he expresses a lot of concern that if we identify the nation as a Christian, like if we have a Christian government, it's going to be confusing for missions because now it's like the government has the keys of the kingdom.

We all know that the church has the keys of the kingdom. The government has the sword. But if the government starts calling itself Christian, like if it's bearing the Christian sword, then people are going to be confused, and it's going to be hard for missions because people are going to think, well, my government is a Christian, so I'm a Christian, and we're not going to be able to give the gospel to people like that because they're going to be nominal Christians.

They're going to think they're already in the kingdom, and it's going to be very hard because it's basically like the government is saying who's in and who's out, like who's a Christian and who's not, who's clean enough for worship of the holy God and who's not.

And he expresses a lot of concern. And I have a hard time taking that seriously coming from the guy who promoted the idea that the government actually does have that power and closing down church. Like if this guy, just like a matter of a year ago, two years ago, wasn't encouraging churches to stay closed because the government told them to, it'd be a little easier to take this very deep concern clutching his pearls seriously.

But it's impossible to take—maybe it's not impossible, I shouldn't say that. But it's hard to take seriously knowing what this man did just like two years ago and has not apologized for, and has not repented of, and has not taken it back, and not even said, oopsie, for goodness sake.

It's like you guys were all closed down because the government told you to. They said that you shouldn't worship a certain way, and you believed them. You said, okay, government, we won't worship that way.

So excuse me if it's a little bit difficult to take this concern very seriously, that people are going to be so confused. I'm just a nominal Christian. I don't really need the gospel. If people are confused about that, that's your problem as the evangelist.

If they think they're—what do we do now? This is not really complicated, right? What do we do with a nominal Christian now? We give them the gospel. We take them through the whole thing. I mean, there's different methods of doing it.

You got the way of the master. You got the Roman's road. There's different ways you could do it. So he's acting like, oh, this is a real concern. This is not a concern, John. This is a play. You're running a play.

That's what this is. You're not actually concerned. You're subversive, and you're running a play, pretending like you're concerned when your actions, which actually show us what you actually believe, John, they actually prove this is not a concern of yours at all.

Not a concern at all. Overall, I mean—and again, guys, tell me if you want me to do the whole article. I will. I will. I'm just having a hard time taking it seriously, and I feel sick, so maybe I just don't want to do it.

I don't know. But this whole article, it really strikes me, just to tie this up in a bow, as Jonathan's saying, you know, look, I think it's okay, and I believe that Christians should influence the government, but only in the field of battle, right?

The public square is a battle of the gods, and so long as we're engaging in that battle, that's okay. You can believe what you want. You can battle and duke it out. But the minute you start winning, the minute you have the authority to actually implement a Christian version of morality of the civil governing authority, a Christian civil governing authority that bears a Christian sword, right?

We're not spreading the gospel with that Christian sword. What we're doing is what the Bible says we should do with it. We should be executing vengeance upon the evildoer and promoting what is good with that sword.

That's why we have it. We don't bear that sword in name. We don't bear the name of the Lord in vain. We bear the sword because God says so. The minute you start winning, well, that's wrong. That's Christian nationalism.

You shouldn't do that. But as long as you're duking it out and you're actually not winning, he's cool with it. In short, I think this is an article that's subversive, and I think it's promoting a loser version of Christianity, which is not the Christianity that I see when I read Psalm 110.

In any case, let me know. If you want me to do the whole article, I will. I'm just having a hard time taking it seriously. And like I said, maybe it's just because I'm not feeling well and I don't want to go into the whole thing.

God bless you all. I love you guys. Take care. Stay healthy. God bless.