Should the United States recognize Christ as Lord? Does a widespread unbelief in a nation, mean that a nation ought not recognize Christ as Lord? Would that make it improper, possibly even sinful or blasphemous for a people to recognize Christ as Lord when many of their hearts are not after him? These are a few of the things that we actually came off of last week's episode, discussing, we want to return to them, have a little panel discussion. Here on the magistrate, I'm Josh Howard. Join us always by James Beard and join again by George Say, or coming off last week's conversation. So, fellas, welcome. Good to be here. This is great. I'm on with the two big guns. Thank you. Listen, we had to bring you on George because you are Christian nationalism trademark, like we can't talk about this. It's true. That's what I've heard. This is going to be a good conversation. I can already tell. So last episode, George and I were discussing a little bit of, and I'm trying to remember actually what the topic, the main topic to do of last episode was, but George and I were coming off a conversation. We talked for some amount of time after we ended recording and thought, this is actually pretty good stuff. We want to walk through this a little bit because it's been in the kind of cultural discussion. Obviously, James and I discussed a recent panel discussion and a book that had come out on this topic. So it seems like a good time to walk through this. But first, before we do, I do want to make sure to mention our sponsors. As always, we've got RockwallBibles.com. I want to commend to you guys. Adam over at RockwallBibles, family owned and operated company out of the Ozarks. They have great custom Bible selections, fine leathers, fine details on the Bible, the nuances of which I can't even remember all the terms. You're Corinthian leathers. They've got Corinthian and they've got yaps. They've got all the yap. We love the yap. You do ever want. So yeah, if you want full yap, half yap, 40 yap, they've got your yap. But I use EM10 when you check out RockwallBibles.com. And honestly, check them out on Instagram or the socials. They come out with stuff every week and sell out pretty quick. Steadfast of cars, long time sponsor of our channel. Appreciate those guys and check out Steadfast as well. But George, help me. Help me walk our friend James here who is still coming off. He is he's Dewey Frash coming off of his paternity leave from EM. Not quite Dewey Frash, you've been back for a couple episodes. But in any case, we were walking through last week and we were talking about ought the nation recognize Christ as Lord and some sort of formal fashion. There have been some modest proposals toward that end of should we recognize that there's a Christian heritage in America. There's been some stronger proposals of no, we ought to recognize Christ as Lord. There's also some historical precedents, especially for those of us in the Presbyterian fold that we could look back. Anybody familiar with the Covenantters at least would say, okay, there's there's some historical precedents here for wanting to recognize Christ formally as Lord to whatever extent in whatever form or fashion at a national level. But then you and I were talking about something that I think is very interesting because again, we're really we're delving into the realm of ought here in my mind. I'm not saying that this is something that we should be looking for in the 2028 election cycle or anything like that. This is this is not something I think that's on the near horizon. We are discussing something that I think is intrinsically valuable for Christians, though, and that is what ought be pursued. What is good? What is what is pure and what is lovely? And how ought those things be pursued? So we're just asking the question ought a nation, not can or will, but ought a nation recognize Christ as Lord. And then you and I George are talking about something. I don't know if you want to kind of bring up a little bit of what you were I don't want to necessarily label it push back. But you know what I mean? Like you kind of had some questions you were thinking through about what if a nation is predominantly in sin or predominantly non-Christian. Would it be improper to recognize Christ as Lord? Would that be even potentially blasphemous? I think we were kind of talking along those terms. But you might walk in a sin to kind of kind of what you were thinking last week and we can get this conversation rolling. Sure. And as I mentioned, I do feel like ill equipped for this conversation. The whole it does relate very much to like the the ARP with the seciders and the coveninters and coming over to this country and all that. But we were just talking about the gospel coalition article. So it wasn't even related to this. I think off air you and I were. That's right. Was this the J.D. Greer one? That was. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. And we were trying to bring in the the world news article too, but I didn't really quite get to that, but somehow tangentially you brought up putting Christ in the Constitution off air. It wasn't even a part of the episode. I don't think. And yeah, I pushed back on that. It doesn't. I mean, I don't know if you want to just jump right in, but to me it's that I understand the position and I understand what it is to have national covenants and that kind of thing. And this seems sort of an in between between that. But like for a nation who has codified in our laws so much sin, it does feel blasphemous to me that we would tack Christ's name on on our constitutional documents. So yeah. Yeah. James, I'm going to kind of kick the ball to you here in a second. But I think I think one might help keep this kind of manageable as a as a conversation is there's a lot that even as I was making some notes for this and kind of walking through some thoughts, I'm trying to think how to pitch this. You have a lot of obviously like two kingdom theology sort of discussions that could come in and pinch on this. You have the Covenantter or Sucider, you know, the Scottish kind of flow of thought that we could bring into this. There's a lot of different things that would kind of intersect that might get this little bit confused. I suppose what I was thinking of was one thing that that George and I had discussed was and agreed upon was that nations function as moral agents in some form or fashion. Right? So when you look at a national entity, it's good and proper in scripture when God says that nation has sinned against me. It's acting as a moral entity. Now that's not to confuse boundaries and it's not to dismiss individual sins and anything like that. But it is to say that God could look at a nation and say that nation has acted sinfully or that that nation has acted properly or justly. So if nations are moral entities, sort of what George and I are walking through, maybe this is a decent way of framing it. James, I'll kind of kick the ball to you on this one. What I was thinking of in line of was, automation recognize the one true God or we could say, automation recognize Christ as Lord. However, we want to frame that. They do that because to fail to do so would be sin or automation not formally recognize Christ as Lord because of their sins. So in other words, should the sin of a nation restrict them from recognizing Christ as Lord or the one true God as the one true God or is that actually cause or impetus for them to recognize Christ as Lord or the one true God as the one true God? Does that make sense what I'm kind of pitching there? Totally. Okay. What do you think? I got a lot of thoughts because I've been in a lot of work on on this movement that started in roughly 1864 to change the constitution of the United States to amend it. Now as you noted, this is something that the Covenanters had been boldly, boldly exhorting the nation to do forever. But the movement didn't get any steam until one, the Civil War happens, which absolutely was a theological crisis for the nation. It was a crisis of identity. They had seen all of their victories as God's providential blessing upon the nation. So what happens when now you have a Civil War where no matter who wins, we lose. Which is just how they fell. They're mourning this tragedy of so many Americans killing each other. And so they're trying to figure it out and people began to realize there must be something that we've done to offend God. We have fallen into vice. We're not, obviously, we're not following him or at least lots of the nation isn't. So what is the original sin of the nation? This is something that people are thinking about in a big way. And so for the first time you have the social conditions that the Covenanter message started resonating with more people. Whereas before it was like you're crazy, now it's like, well, maybe you're on to something. And it doesn't really go anywhere until you get the mainline denominations joining the movement as well. And of course, one of the most influential, arguably the most influential, denomination is the PCUSA. So the mainline American Presbyterians joining this movement, it's not just the dissenting Covenanters, which was kind of a fringe group before this. So there isn't just R2K or Covenanter. You also just have normal American Presbyterians who are wrestling with these questions as well and wanting to change the Constitution. That's first thing I'd say, just historically it's not just Covenanter. You do get the mainline Presbyterians. And they have their own kind of approach to it. And in all the histories of this movement, which was not many, but there are some thorough ones, they note that there's like a little battle that goes on. Is this movement going to be more mainline Presbyterian or is it going to be more Covenanter in its flavor? So that's a historical note that I would make. You may pause there. Yeah, I mean, any thoughts on that, George, because I do have one question that arises in my mind. Not really. I mean, it's setting the stage. It's setting the stage. Right. One thing that's kind of been in my mind, and James kind of working through some of the OG NRA things that you and I've walked through, one of the questions that arose in my mind was, is the governments, you know, this to me gets back to affirmations and denials. Right. If you were to have a positive affirmation, I was to say it is good for us to do, you know, X, removing that does not necessarily mean that I now think that it is wrong or harmful for us to do X. It means I'm removing a positive affirmation. But it implies that there's a neutral ground that can be reached on that decision. In other words, backing away from a positive affirmation, while not then shifting to a negative denial, there can be some sort of neutral ground without making it good, but it's not necessary. Yeah. Yeah. Or at least like it's permissible. It's within the realm of permissibility. That's what I'm wondering about with this, because as I was reading some of the statements from some of the NRA guys, one of the things that was that was on my mind was, is it a morally neutral conception to not affirm Christ as Lord or to not affirm the one true God is the one true God. Because from some of the voices that I was hearing, it wasn't as if they were at least for a few of them. It didn't sound like they were arguing from a place of assumed neutrality. That it was almost like you either affirm God or you were choosing not to affirm God. The light switch is either on or off. There's not that neutral ground from a couple of the other voices I could see the other side. So I'm just curious what your take is on that is this is this like a morally neutral ground in particular with this movement that we're talking about or is there a mixed bag. Yeah. I'd say it's complicated. Yeah. It's very complicated, especially depending upon your polity, and I don't mean ecclesiastical polity. I mean, civil government, polity, your form of government. So you know, you got to remember that before the civil, at the founding, right, the states were the ones who were responsible for doing the vast majority of governance, not the federal government. So and the bill of rights was primarily there to limit the federal government and anything not express expressly given as a power to the federal government. The 10th amendment says that states with the states, right? So I think that there were plenty of people who, I think it's Alexander Hamilton, if I remember correctly, who says the Constitution is the greatest international treaty ever made. So there's this question and disagreement over what exactly is the nation, right? Like is it, is this a collection of nations that are federated together? And that would be kind of in an Athosian way, right? Or is the nation, you know, the United, you know, the United States, not these United States, right? So the founding, the question may have been, is it morally required for a federation to make this declaration, or is it sufficient for each of the states within the federation to make that declaration? That's a complicated question. Right. You can't complicate a question. By the time you get to the Civil War, especially, I mean, in your Northern, you definitely have an opinion about this, you know, we are the United States, not these United States. Right. Right. That's the argument against the South and the South is saying, no, we're these United States, right? So especially if you're a Northern or you have a much more unitarian, not unitarian, like, you think of this as of the nation as one thing. Right. Right. As a union. Right. And so it makes total sense that Northerners are like, we totally, it makes sense for Northerners that have shifted in this direction that they think this has to be in the Constitution, right? Because because we are a nation. Right. And and so you, you are much more fond of federal power. I'm speaking in generalities here. Okay, there are exceptions and nuances, but in general. So that's why it's like very, very complicated, you know, of because it's kind of a different question at the founding, you know. So with our spoon, obviously, supports the Constitution, supports ratification of the Constitution. But then he has a famous, he has two, you know, sermons, one of them super famous, the other one I wish was more famous. One's called the Dominion of Providence over the passions of men or man. That's given in 1776 on the occasion of the proclamation of a fast day because the independence is coming and they want the Lord to bless their efforts for independence. Then he preaches another sermon when the war ends that is a, it's not thank, you know, it's Thanksgiving not fasting. Sorry, the first one was a fasting proclamation. The next one's a Thanksgiving proclamation for winning the war. And he kind of ends and kind of his whole point of this sermon is like all of the states need to honor God. Basically, they need to be virtuous, right? They need to be virtuous. They need to honor God. And we're going to do a competition here, which ever state is like the most Christian, the most virtuous is clearly going to be the best state. So like let's, let's compete to see which of the states is going to be most Christian, right? That's kind of how we ends it. So it's just like a different time, different circumstance, different understanding of the polity and especially after the Civil War. That's kind of, you could say, the second constitution, like the way the constitution is thought about is way different after the Civil War. Things just change. Right. About how it's applied. And you know, arguably the 14th amendment changes that as well through implied incorporation. There's debates over that. But that's at least how it starts getting applied by the judicial system. So yeah, that again, just setting the table there, it kind of depends, you know, let me ask no, go ahead, James. Well, just my, my positive opinion is, is this where I am right now, as I'm thinking through this, I do think that nations, however you want to define nation to state, the federal government, whatever, nations do have a duty to acknowledge the lordship of Christ. I do think that's the case. But how, how, when, where, right? There are so many examples in the Old Testament, especially of, of people acknowledging the lord in the wrong way for selfish purposes and getting judged. Right. I think of Eli Suns taking Ark of the Covenant into battle. Right. And losing. I think of what's his face who tries to keep the Ark of the Covenant from falling when David's bringing it back. Right. And he dies. Is there whatever. Yeah. I like what's his face better. But yeah, what's his face? Yeah. Yeah. You know, there are the examples of doing it wrongly, right? Like, zeal without knowledge. Right. So even when you say, like, you have to protect the Ark of the Covenant. Okay. Moral duty. Have to protect the Ark of the Covenant. Right. You should rely upon the lord for salvation and battle. Right. These things are true. But then you got to do it according to knowledge, according to God's revelation in the right way, or else you could end up worse than where he started before. So I guess maybe I don't know if I don't know Josh's position. I may be kind of middle ground there a little bit. Where it's like, yeah, it's pretty much what it's pretty much what you and I talked about last time. And I want to pitch a question to George here, but you and I kind of talked about that last time that there's matters of wisdom and prudence. There's matters of how to do these things that are that are not so cut and dried. But we both agreed that affirming Christ is Lord or the one true God is the one true God, however you want to get to that for the state. However big that state conception is is a good thing. It should be pursued. I think you made the case that it should be pursued if it can be pursued, which I liked the way I've been affirmed that. That's right. George, I'm curious. So I wonder if it changes the, I mean, obviously we're kind of we're kind of delving into some of the historical background that James and I have talked about on our show before. But I wonder if it changes the conception at all if we're talking about states versus the nation. And I don't want to make that overly complicated because I think the US probably there's a lot of different views on what the states and what the nation kind of looks like. I think most people are far more comfortable at this point with a federal level than a state level. But I wonder if it makes the conversation any simpler if we were to look at a state level. So like you and James are down there in God's country and the sunshine state of Florida where oranges and bibles are just dropping off every tree as you walk down this is how I could, I can see the where you guys live in any case. We are up here in the frozen north. There's other states that are that are quite devoid of gospel influence within our union and states where churches are few and far between. So I wonder if it I wonder if it changes the dynamic if we're talking about what sort of state kind of like we're just bringing up. Like for example, if you had a state in our union and this isn't like play favorites of Florida versus California or anything like that. But if you were to have a state that in general was full of God fearing Christians, would that change the dynamic versus a state in the union where they're small minority? Is there still kind of a discomfort with the state at all? Quas state? What do you I mean, what do you think on that? Yeah. So a couple things and to engage a little bit with what James said, I do think like historical analysis and retrieval is important just to understand how people think and thought about why they came to a position. But what we keep running into whether it's in the conversation on Christian nationalism or even another conversation I've gotten somehow involved in the reconquesta conversation, it's all the same thing because when you get to America, you get something brand new. You get something brand new when America in the American founding both politically and religiously. And so relying on a trajectory usually going back through to Calvin up forward to the Westminster Assembly and to the colonies and the founding of our country, like anything those men wrote is important to understand. But is a reflection of their time and also the water they're swimming in coming out of a context where they are? And I just think like that that always needs to be kept in the forefront. So but to James point, I do appreciate like kind of the moderated position because that's what I thought also was I thought by the way the example of Eli Suns was was great. So we're going to bring this thing out as if we can you know, some in God like a genie in the bottle and it brings judgment. And that's that's my concern. Like I don't want to tack Christ's name into our constitution when we have states that are doing abortion up to nine months when we are you know, we don't know what a woman is and these things are codified in laws. Now to your to your point or your question Josh, it's funny. I just had this conversation with a government official at a cigar night at a pastor's house. So it's kind of a great confluence of different things. And he's a guy on X who is involved in these conversations because I don't naturally bring these things up. That's not my role as a chaplain. But when when people want to talk about them and he kind of played the the DG hard card of well, what level of government? So this goes to your question, well, who the national government that said, who we don't know, we don't know like like this, like we just don't understand the movement like do you want the president to do it? Do you want your mayor to do it? You want your governor to do it? And like I'm confused why they're confused. Totally because it's whatever the station is, whatever jurisdiction is, if there is a right, they have a relationship to that that mandate. And so no, I don't want the president to do what the governor is supposed to do. And I don't want the governor to do what the mayor is supposed to do. And I don't want the mayor to do what the city commission is supposed to do. I want each to relate to the ought and the duty as it relates to their station calling and jurisdiction. So what I would say is you love that? Love it. Cool. Maybe I'll say that when I, you know, teach your class in a week or two. There you go. Yeah. Hey, for those who want to hear George teach, come on down to our teacher. Right. And so, but to this to this point and question, I am not in theory against Jesus Christ being proclaimed Lord in a nation's founding documents or constitutional documents in as much as it is a true reflection of, I like when James brought up the polity thing before. You know, because in our polity, in our form of government, our government is a reflection of the citizenry. In one, you know, maybe you know, 50 years or it behind because the citizenship changes before the laws do. But that, but that is very much, but that's not always the case. And that's a new thing. So the monarchy would or the or the tribal identity would define what a people groups identity is and what their commitments are. So in our country, we just don't have that commitment that to place Jesus as Lord on our documents. I would fear that actually bring curse and judgment upon us. However, if a locale wanted to do that because it was reflective of the citizenry and it kind of established who they are and how they're going to operate, I think that's fine. And that's been my position, you know, I know as people say, well, I'm not, you know, I've never called myself a Christian national. So they're clearly Christian nationalists. And then people say, well, George, you're a Christian nationalist. I actually was called or accused of being a full-throated Christian national last week. And in a very angry message I got. And I said, I'm actually not. And that's not a game that I'm playing. The reason I can declare that I'm not is because I believe the Christian nationalist program is actually something that's on the table. I'm just not specifically advocating for it. And I also don't think it's incumbent upon all people's places and times to do that. So yeah, I'm for it in as much as, again, Jesus says in a nation's constitutional documents or people's documents in as much as it actually reflects the citizenry in our system. And the last thing I'll say in a promise last year, to me, it seems like there's kind of two options. You put, you put Jesus in there because of the covenanting idea. Okay, because you believe that that then establishes that we are united to Christ not in a solidific sense, but in this political arrangement. And that I don't actually agree with. I don't think at all. I'd have to really hear the covenanting arms. There's another sense by which it's in your documents to establish foundational assumptions and operating principles by which we will operate as a people. So it's not, it's not there by connecting vertically with God. It's connecting how we are going to, we need a starting point. And that just establishes, again, the assumptions and how we're going to move forward and operate. Yeah. Yep. I think that's great. I got a couple thoughts here. One of them is, I think one reason why I talk about Christ and the Constitution and stuff is mainly to respond to people who say things like that's covenanting. It was never American, you know, like main line American Presbyterian theology. Right. And I say, the whole old school general assembly of the North endorsed this. The whole faculty of Princeton seminary, the whole faculty of Princeton University, like every major theologian in the Princeton, but you know, so it's a historical point. I actually think as like the as a political program for today, it's hugely distracting. Right. I think I think it's totally a distraction. First of all, like you think that's going to pass, we've tried to pass this like multiple times. It's just it's not going to pass. And if it's not going to pass, it's stupid thing to get distracted on as something you actually want right now. If the one that like would have the best chance to pass is Almolers, who's very careful in how we described it, because it's it's describing the Christian heritage that is the foundation upon which our free institutions are built. It's like that is a better chance of passing. But you know, still very low and he says very low, right. So I want to just want to. So Jay, let me I haven't seen that, but that that is like that would change things for me. Yeah, right. Because I do believe we ought to recognize the the views and heritage of our founding codified in our documents, because we need as a people need to move forward in some sort of unified understanding of who we are. Exactly. I totally agree. And that's why anytime I've been like now that, you know, one day I'd love to see that pass. It's been Mullers, right. So I like Mullers a lot. But you know, what matters more than just words on a page is our actual behavior. You know, it is what we're doing as a nation, you know, are we honoring him in our national acts like that. And national acts, I include proclamations and the what government officials are actually doing. And laws, right. Rulings of judges, all these things are if they're at the federal level, they're national all that type of stuff matters more to me than, you know, getting rid of abortion matters more than me, getting rid of gay marriage matters more to me. Protecting the church matters more to me, you know, electing leaders who are evangelical Christians matters more to me. And all of that is way more doable than some sort of constitutional amendment. If God blesses us and we actually national repentance at whatever level you're talking about. Repentance is always joined with faith, right. And you could think of putting Christ to your constitution as a declaration of faith. But if you do that without repentance, it's not real, it's insincere, right. So I'm much more interested in pushing for repentance and defining that as a change of behavior. And that's what I'm exhorting people to constantly do. Whatever they're calling in station in a civil position is calling into repentance, right. That that always has to precede any act of declaration, I think. And the this big, but I mean, or that goes to jot what Josh had said last week to me was what percent of people need to fit this in order for you to be comfortable with it. Can we talk about this for a second? Michael Scott voice, by the way, you don't just say it, you declare it continue. I declare. Yeah. Oh, come on. That was Andrew Walker's thing. It was. I do have, I do have kind of a thought toward that with what George is bringing up though because I'm agreeing with so much of what you're saying, James, I think or what you both are saying. I would me not all just said it. I said it before you said it. I agree with what you guys saying. You know, I want I want right actions. I think one of the things that this really gets at and one of the reasons why I find it an interesting talk because again, I do think that Christians can become distracted. There's been some some some guys who have brought up the distraction that political theology especially can be for a lot of Christians. I agree. I think that a lot of these things are worth discussing. Obviously, we do a show on this, but I do think that you can become so far wrapped up in things that you have so little control over and God has given you so little voice into that it can kind of be detrimental to where you are and where God's placed you. What I find interesting, though, about this conversation, like this one that we're having right now about a constitutional amendment, I find far more interesting than the actual constitutional amendment is people's conception of what the binding nature of a thing is. What is the thing that actually binds us together? Because again, words on a page don't mean much, but public proclamations of Christ as Lord, they do mean something in so far as a people are saying, this is at the center of what actually is the substance of our binding together as a cohesive unit. You know, James, you brought up Althusias. This is at the conception of covenantal household building outward into these symbiotic associations. That's what I find interesting because at the center of this, what is it that binds your family together or your neighborhood? I want to get more community involvement. I want to pull in Western PA in my context. Yeah, but what's the thing there at the center? Can you have a meaningful association without that sort of unified vision? Because then all the social things that flow from that, the mores, the norms, the customs, the laws, the expressions of art, all those things are then formed by that conception. So that's where I find it interesting. Now, getting back to what George is just bringing up because I'm fine going either way, you guys want to go, but George's bringing up, I did say, you know, what if you had a state that was 95% Christian? Or if you had a state that was, and again, I know the numbers game is a little bit trite, but you know, if you have a vastly majority state, when I say state, I'm talking capitalist, whatever, you know, whether it's a state in the US states or whether it's some sort of political unity outside of out of this country. But at what point can you then say, okay, this would actually be, this would actually be a good thing for us to recognize Christ as Lord. This is Kevin D. Young's whole bunch of Presbyterians crash land on Mars argument. Right. Yeah. Right. So then you got 12 Presby's running around, did that all agree on the confession? Can we? What do we call it? So I liked, I liked George's. He said, listen, things are different in America because now we the people rule. Right. So, and you know, that does raise the question of like, well, what percentage of the people have to be born again, regenerate Christians before a national declaration like this is not hypocritical. Here's, here's my, my response. I think the whole idea that we, the people rule is totally fake. And it's always been fake and it's not true. It's like, it's just what we pretend to do. James is going for the hot take on this episode. Oh, oh, dude. Well, this actually is part of the arguments for putting Christ in the Constitution. A lot of their argument is a social contract theory is like not Christian and its false. So anyway, yeah, I, I think that's just a contradiction in terms to say that it's actually the subjects who are ruling. It's like, no, and a roughford makes this argument, you know, arguably Rutherford's likes Rex is one of the key texts that helps us figure out our theory of government. But Rutherford is so clear about this. God is the one who institutes the governing powers, not the people. Okay, it's God who does it. But he does it by means of the people. Okay, so it's same thing in Presbyterianism like in Presbyterianism is the congregation in charge. No, the elders are the ones who rule. Okay, who elects the elders, the people, right? The people are electing the elders, but it's the elders who are in charge, right? Not not the people themselves. So I think that people oftentimes like push back on language that I use in my book when I'm like magistrates have a duty to to promote true religion for everyone under their care. And they're like, well, in America, they aren't we aren't under their care, you know, because it's we the people who are ruling by means of our representative. Like, that's just fake, guys. That's not how it works. And this is why we're frustrated. We don't feel represented, right? Like I'd and it's like, yeah, you what we do is we vote. We vote for people to represent not our opinions, but our interests, but nevertheless, in terms of the like larger catechism, fifth commandment, we are the infirures, they are the superiors, they are actually in charge. Yeah, I mean, we're not a pure democracy, we're constitutional republic. I get that. Yeah. But still our laws, leaders take shape. And, you know, there's special interests, of course, there's powers that be there's there's all kinds of other things going on behind the scenes that are driving this thing. But more than any other place in history does the citizenry of this country represent what is happening here? They have they have well, even then it's like, I just don't think we're actually that special on this point. And so a few things to point out is, you know, universal suffrage is like a totally new new thing, right? Like at the founding, for example, it was only like land holding white rich dudes, right? That's so it's like, we the people. Well, who did we the people mean? It meant land owning rich white guys, you know, like that's who is actually voting. Now they were supposed to vote in light of the people that they've had a public spirit to, you know, take care of, etc, etc. So I'm not claiming equal influence either. I don't think you are. I'm not really responding to you necessarily. I'm just just I don't actually think we're all that different. And the other thing that I would point out is every ruler, this is an enthusiast, too. Like when you read the classic political texts, they constantly talk about how the ruler has to conform to the expectations, customs, and habits of the people, right? Like it is absolutely inevitable. If you have a ruler who comes in and just does what he wants to do without factoring in the constitution, like lowercase C, not like your document, but how the people actually operate, they get overturned like they do horrible. They get out of there. So it's like, yeah, the difference is just the mechanism, like the unique way that we put together the mechanism by which we do that. But that thing happens like everywhere. Would you would tribute that to like communist nations? But I attribute that to communist. Yeah, so you do have you can't have tyrannical government, right? You do have tyrannical government where basically is doing stuff against the best interests of the people and aren't representing them. And that's when government goes horribly wrong. For communist countries, so it's a spectrum, right? Like this totally just is a spectrum, right? But you know, you want to think about like China, what what happens in China with the people's revolution? Like you had normal dudes just going out and killing professors, right? You actually did pick a big segment of the population that felt represented by the people's revolution, right? And go out and like kill the other faction that they have beef with or have been stirred up to have beef with, right? It's kind of fake and imagined. And you think about like what it was like in like communist Russia? Like your average dude is like a loyal commie. You know what I mean? Now, so I just say it's like it's complicated, but the story of like we rule here, they don't rule there is like it's a little bit more complicated than that. So you see if I understand your argument, you're saying in in monarchies, while the king, the rulers have ultimate authority and can do what they want, they're they're reflecting the will of the people in as much as they want peace and tranquility and positivity and support from their subjects. That's right. And even because this is like a natural law of how people work, even your most evil tyrannical government has to concede this at some level. Well, I think I think we're, I mean, there is a spectrum. So totally a spectrum. You know, again, from tyrannical to, you know, pure democracy. Uh, anyway, go ahead. Yeah. So all that I'm doing here is to say, I just think it's more complicated than is oftentimes thought about how the American system actually works. And there are people who genuinely think the way the American system works, the people are the magistrates. That's how they, that's how they think the people are the magistrates. And therefore, you, the only place that like a Christian nationalism or a Christian government can happen is at the level of the people. And therefore you need like a mass revival where 100% of the people are Christian before you can do something. And I'm like, I don't think that's just actually how government works. I don't think the people are magistrates. Yeah. So let, so let me, let me just summarize what you're saying there. So if, if in a monarchy, yeah, even though they have a ruler, they're, they're ultimately doing things that their people will swallow in a, in our system, it's not that the people are, are ruling. It's they elect people representatively who then actually have the authority to do things whether the people want them to or not again within the confines of the law of the wrong. And you know, I'm in this sense, I am, I am highly influenced by a political theory called selectorate theory. And the idea of selectorate theory is that different forms of government are actually on a spectrum from like an absolute monarchy to a pure democracy. And the, the spectrum is this, what is your selectorate? That means the number of people that you have to keep happy and older to control power. So in an absolute monarchy, it's going to be like the nobility, right? If the nobility are totally against the absolute and probably your generals, right? Your generals and the nobility depending on how it's set up that could be the same group of people because nobility to lead the generals or whatever. But there's a very, in an absolute monarchy, there's a very small number of people that the monarchy has to keep happy in order to maintain power. And a pure democracy, well, let's not say a pure democracy. And a representative democracy with universal suffrage, that's how I'll put it, you got to keep all the people happy in order to maintain power. But it's actually, it's a spectrum, right? It's a spectrum. And it's also rusting Russian nesting dolls as well. It's like, it's layered. So the absolute monarchy has to keep the nobility happy. Well, how do they maintain their power? They have to keep their people happy or you have a peasant revolt, right? And so it is Russian nesting dolls. But the question is how flat is that? Is it highly hierarchical to where the king keeps the nobles happy, the noble keep the peasant's happy, whatever? Or is it super flat? And all the people are on like one person, one vote, right? So I just want to complicate, because I do think it's like legitimately more complicated than people think. And I think it's just kind of wrong to think that I'm the magistrate. I was talking to a friend, actually, this was quoted from someone else. I don't remember who it's quoted from. So this is not my quote. It's a technically, when a police officer pulls you over and you say, officer, why'd you pull me over? If we, the people is true, you know, where the magistrates, the officer should say, because you told me to, why'd you pull me over? Because you told me to, right? Like you're the magistrate. You're the one who passed the laws. You're the one who elected the sheriff. You're the one like, but they don't. They say like, actually, I have authority. You know what I mean? You were representatively involved in this process, but yeah, I'm in charge of you. You know, like in the church, what I would, you know, when people would be maybe be upset, decisions, you know, the proverbial like color of the carpet thing, you know, like that, people think that's a joke. It's, it's not. I mean, we painted our sanctuary and there were people upset and they thought they should have a vote in the color, you know, and I just had to say like, it's, and then there was this thought that, well, you know, the deacons and the elders are there, we elected them to do what, what our will is. And I'm like, no, no, you elect them to lead and to make decisions. And I liked the way you said it earlier about not to do what the people want, but what's in their interest or I forgot how you put it. But that's it. Yeah, the public good. Right. The same way I, again, we, you know, the nursing father analogy for my, for my family, like I'm there making decisions for my kids and my family's best interest in my role and capacity to do that. That's right. Your wife chose to marry you. But yeah, you're like, you're the head of the house. Right. Right. Now you do that in consultation with her. Yada yada yada. But so, um, I think, anyway, bring it back to the whole Christ in the Constitution. Well, let me, let me wrap this up. Yeah. This point really quickly. The thing that I'm critiquing is the idea that government, I say it's my book, government is like baseball, we get to make up the rules. That's not true. Government is a natural institution. God designed. And we can kind of lark around and pretend like we're doing government in a way that we invented. But there, but nature always wins. Like it's actually just going just in the same way your body's going to just naturally operate in a certain way. And if you try and do a transgender surgery, it's going to go kooky because like you just can't, your body's not play dough. Like, uh, society's not play dough. I'm tweeting that later. But your body's not play dough. Your body's not, your body's not play dough. Uh, and government isn't baseball. Like there are different ways to do it, but there's still laws on just how people work and operate. And God made it that way. Um, so back to Christ in the Constitution, I would say, um, I, I would look to a model kind of like Josiah, not in him like killing everyone, but in this way, before he rededicated, there was a process of repentance. Right. And you might say, well, but how many of the people of Israel really sincerely believed it when he led the people to covenant again with the Lord. And it's like, well, I don't know how many people like sincerely believed, um, you know, how many people have been regenerated. It wasn't 100% like we know that for sure, but it was some portion. And nevertheless, Josiah leads them in this national active repentance and he starts enforcing the law and because he's king, the people have to obey. Um, and you might think about it sort of like this way, like do you want people going to church who don't really believe in Jesus? Well, no, but as a father still, when he after he converts going to say you all guys going to church, you know, what are you forcing the rest of the family to be a hypocrite? And he should wait until everyone in the family has been regenerate before they say, no, he's, he's leading the people to take this external action that is right. But the point that I'm conceding is that external action that is right has to include repentance. Well, that's cool. That's key and important. Uh, when you mentioned, you know, Josiah and the Israel thing, my immediate mind went to the church and then you start talking about the church. And my thought there was, I mean, I'm though, I'm no dispensationalist. I'm a covenant theologian, but I do understand that you can't like God covenanted with Israel. Like that is a different arrangement than any other, any other nation and the analog generally with Israel and God's covenant with Israel is to God's covenant with the covenant community. And so I do think the church is different than the state in that regard. Yeah. But still general, make those connection. Yeah. The right, the general equity and how you make those connections are, are, I mean, that's what the discussion is around. So, and in fact, yeah, exactly. There's still general equity that we can learn there. And um, one general equity principle that you can learn through all of the assembly actions from the Old Testament is in order for it to be a legitimate, good assembly action, you don't need a certain percentage of the people to ensure that they're regenerate. Yeah, but they're, but they're operating. But again, they're like Israel's operating within in our terms, their constitution. I mean, God gave them how they're supposed to, so they're operating with, you know, uh, their, yeah, but I'm saying you can look at any assembly at any level. So it's just like the nature of people assembled. In order to be good, you don't need 100% of the people to be regenerate. No, and, and I've used this argument in the past about like people's like a lot of people are like, well, the church has failed and we're not Christian nation. So the church needs to have all these conversions before we can do whatever. And it doesn't, it doesn't start at the top. It starts at the bottom. And I'm like, actually, the Bible shows revival starting at the top. Many more instances of that than it does like some mass movement among the people. It's a king-setting direction. Josiah is a great point, but there's others have to hire whatever. And, and they make unilaterally make a determination by which the people follow. And I think I think forget the Christian nationals on conversation. I mean, that is psychologically, sociologically, we have to understand that only elect leaders, they are catacizing the nation. You saw that with with Obama. Obama, I think so fundamentally transformed the electorate ideologically in his eight years. Yeah, I totally agree. That's all that I'm saying. That's exactly what I'm saying. I've been trying to think. What do you think? Yeah, Josh. Well, I've been sitting here silent for like, I don't know, sorry bro. No, no, no, it's been good. It's been fun listening to the conversation. I've been thinking about my mind like, how do I land the plane? One thing one thing that James brought up, this might help kind of land the plane a little bit. So at the beginning of this, we were talking about creation all odds. Another way of talking about that is how James was just talking about this, just natural created order. This is something inherent to the natural order, the created order, the creational design, whatever framing you want to take. I think that's a helpful way of looking at this is that when we talk about government, it's the same as like within worship. There are the elements of worship and there's the circumstances of worship. You cannot do worship without the elements. Your circumstances may change a little bit depending on your time and place and makeup. There are certain things with government that are due to wisdom and prudence. We can pull this off here. We can't there. I was listening to what George was saying and almost, I was hearing kind of a burky and thought the back of my mind of how these things develop from those that we inherit them from. I'm not putting burk on you if you don't want it. I'm just saying, that was kind of the back of my mind as I was listening to that. Then we're also talking, though, as James is bringing up about certain things that are simply not malleable within governance because God's created a thing and he said this is how it works. Now here's my little contention because my brain is typically thinking in theological categories on this stuff or dogmatic categories. We live in a Western culture that by and large rejects the entire covenantal framework that the three of us are operating from. So the three of us, I think, are very comfortable with saying one can have a Christian household and it's not polluted when you have a new child. It actually just grows. You can have a Christian school. You can have a Christian community. You can have a Christian church. Even if somebody falls away from that church because their heart was not truly regenerate, they were not converted and they fall away after a time. That doesn't invalidate the true church. It does show God's purification of his church, but you can still have Christian as an adjective of something. There can be a group which ascribes itself as following Christ and can be recognized as Christian. It's interesting to me because that gives the three of us a lot of common ground that quite frankly, we don't share with the majority of Christians in the West. Most Christians in the West have no conception of a covenantal framework. So they're not thinking of things. Christian can't be an adjective beyond the individual. In reality, it can only be a noun. Describing an individual. It can't be an adjective ascribed to a group. I think that's in the background of a lot of this conversation that goes back to all that stuff that James was just teasing you out with the people ruling. It fits with that thought. I have to go after this, but I think that's true and I think we've got to define covenant because covenant doesn't necessarily mean eschatological or redemptive. Okay. Covenant means net works together, but that's essentially what it means. People networked together. When we say we're covenantal, we absolutely believe in the most important covenant of life, covenant of grace, where people are net worked together by God ordered to life. When we say we're covenantal, it also just means this is how we believe God made people to operate. It's the opposite of individualism. James, you got to run. George, appreciate both of you guys for being on here. If anybody listening to this has questions, shoot us an email, eschatologymatters1atgmail.com. You can drop a question in the comments. As we always typically say, I think typically we get one of our production gavel refer to us. We'll try to follow up with you on there. Other than that, fellas, thanks so much and look forward to chatting again sometime soon. See you, bro. Thanks.
