Response to Right Response on Sacralism and the Council of Nicaea

Responding to a recent podcast by Joel Webbon and "The Other Paul"

The key names in the Christian Nationalist movement seem dead-set on severing ties from their former theological beliefs and associates. Though Right Response Ministries used to hold conferences with men like James White and Joe Boot on the topics of theonomy, presuppositionalism and sphere sovereignty it has been made increasingly clear that Joel (and the mass of online CNs) are abandoning these beliefs in favor of a social order based upon natural law and an infusion of the church and state, to the extent that the belief is actually that state-involvement in theological matters is a good thing.

This is made evidently clear in a recent appearance of “The Other Paul” on the Right Response Ministries podcast entitled “How Sacralism Saved the Church”. This episode was admittedly less embarrassing than the previous one RRM did on Nicaea (not to be mean, but saying that the Council of Nicaea was about homoousious vs homoousion is just embarrassing) but there were still a number of things I take issue with, and so I thought this warranted a response.

The podcast runs about 2 1/2 hours, and is done in a sort of informal conversational style (not that there is anything wrong with that), and so I will not work through the arguments sequentially, like I might if I was responding to written material, but will order and structure things in my own particular way.

The Basic Premise

If I can sum it up in my own words, the basic premise of the argument is that “God has used state power to assist the church in matters of doctrine in the past”, and the idea is that this leads to the conclusion that “therefore, we ought to use the state power to assist the church in matters of doctrine now.”

It does not take a student of logic to recognize that this argument is not valid. Just because we can observe that God, in His Providence, has done something does not mean that we are to try to recreate the scenario in our own day.

My counter to this (and sadly, I think Joel Webbon would have agreed with what I am about to say only a year or two ago) is that God has, in His word, provided us with sufficient prescriptive instruction as regards distinct roles of varying spheres of authority, and a separation between the roles of the Church and the State. I have written on this topic briefly before and have written more specifically about Theonomy here, but for now allow me to borrow the words of Dr. Greg Bahnsen to summarize my basic position:

“church and state can be separated with respect to function, instrument, and scope and yet both be responsible to God. The Lord rules not only His church but also His world. While we might legitimately expect more ready obedience from the former, the fact remains that God has established standards for the latter as well. To argue that the state should divorce itself from God in order allegedly to protect the separation of church and state is in reality an argument for a kind of nature/grace dichotomy which grants autonomy to the state… The law does not grant the state the right to enforce matters of conscience (thus granting "freedom of religion"), but it does have the obligation to prohibit and restrain public unrighteousness (thus punishing crimes from rape to public blasphemy).” - Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics 3rd Edition, pgs. 413-414

Notice that for Bahnsen, there is a difference between public blasphemy and heresy. The state has been ordained by God to punish the former, not the latter. Bahnsen would also affirm that the state has been granted the right to punish idolatry (see Deuteronomy 13) but he still maintained that there was a distinction between this and the state suppressing heresy. Since Webbon likes to praise Rushdoony (who would very much be opposed to much of what was said in their podcast) I’ll let him explain here:

“It should be noted that Deuteronomy 13:5-18 does not call for the death penalty for unbelief or for heresy. It condemns false prophets (vv. 1-5) who seek to lead the people, with signs and wonders, into idolatry. It does condemn individuals who secretly try to start a movement into idolatry (vv. 6-11). It does condemn cities which establish another religion and subvert the law order of the nation (vv. 13-18), and this condemnation must be enforced by man to turn away the judgment of God (v. 17).” - R.J. Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law vol. 1, pg. 39

The Scripture does not authorize state suppression of someone holding to theological errors, but because the laws of the nation are reflective of the God of the nation, to publicly blaspheme, or to lead someone to worship other gods, is to fundamentally strike at the basic foundation of the society.

What these men are advocating for is Sacralism. Now I used Sacralism in a previous article to refer to the cultural implications of church/state fusion, but what we are talking about here is the particular civil dynamic that takes place when all of society is connected to a particular institutional church.

The Historical Example

As noted in the previous section, the basic premise of the argument is that God used the state to assist the church in matters of doctrine in the past. I noted how this premise does not lead to the conclusion the men on the podcast want to argue for, but for now let us look at the key historical example used to substantiate the premise, Constantine and the Council of Nicaea¹.

In an amazing working out of Providence, Constantine (306-337)² rises to power just after one of the worst periods of persecution the Christian church had ever experienced, that of the Emperor Diocletian (284-305). Constantine grants imperial toleration to Christianity in the year 313, an action that any sound-minded Christian would praise God for. But you see, Constantine encountered a problem upon his rise to power (and his professed faith in Christ, although it is possible that he died a theological heretic) and that was of the Arian controversy which was then raging in the Eastern part of the church.

Constantine felt that it was his duty to do something about this. Constantine probably had an intellectual curiosity in the matter, but his chief goal was a unified church and, therefore, social order. He stated in a letter that:

“MY design then was, first, to bring the diverse judgments formed by all nations respecting the Deity to a condition, as it were, of settled uniformity; and, secondly, to restore to health the system of the world, then suffering under the malignant power of a grievous distemper. Keeping these objects in view, I sought to accomplish the one by the secret eye of thought, while the other I tried to rectify by the power of military authority. For I was aware that, if I should succeed in establishing, according to my hopes, a common harmony of sentiment among all the servants of God, the general course of affairs would also experience a change correspondent to the pious desires of them all.” - cited in Eusebius of Caesaria, “The Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine,” in Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Ernest Cushing Richardson, vol. 1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890), 516.

And thus, in the year 325 he commissions a council to be held in Nicaea, which would ultimately establish a precedent that would continue for over 1,000 years of the state becoming involved in theological disputes (as well as a stepping stone towards Roman supremacy). And while Constantine did not declare the Roman Empire the Holy Roman Empire (as is commonly thought) he did issue a general exhortation that his subjects ought to be Christian.

Now, while we as Christians recognize that God did ultimately use this situation for good, because the creedal formulations that would eventually come out of Nicaea accord with Biblical truth, we are very foolish to ignore some of the negatives that have derived from what has been called “Constantinianism”.

You see, civil rulers tend to be more concerned with their own power and authority, rather than theological accuracy. And after Nicaea, not all theological disputes were solved, and the church did not enter into the millennial age of peace. Factioning, it could be argued, worsened after state-involvement with what is usually referred to as the Arian Resurgence. Though Arius and his teachings were condemned by Nicaea, his teaching quickly became popular throughout the empire, even among Constantine’s own sons and Constantine himself. As Jerome put it, “The whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian”. This is why Athanasius, the defender of Nicene Orthodoxy during this period, is usually spoken of as contra mundem (against the world). Before his death, Constantine would call upon Eusebius of Nicomedia (who was previously exiled for his Arianism) to baptize him. The fact of the matter is that despite how God used him, he died professing the very heresy he had previously been instrumental in condemning.

Constantine’s own sons, who are described by historians as wicked, power hungry and jealous; would take it upon themselves to use state-power to call councils of their own (such as in Gaul and Illyricum) to support Arianism and used state power to condemn those whom they deemed theological heretics! Violent suppression was not off the table either, and this led Athanasius to say,

“Now if it was altogether unseemly in any of the Bishops to change their opinions merely from fear of these things, yet it was much more so, and not the part of men who have confidence in what they believe, to force and compel the unwilling. In this manner it is that the Devil, when he has no truth on his side, attacks and breaks down the doors of them that admit him with axes and hammers5. But our Saviour is so gentle that He teaches thus, ‘If any man wills to come after Me,’ and, ‘Whoever wills to be My disciple;’ and coming to each He does not force them, but knocks at the door and says, ‘Open unto Me, My sister, My spouse7;’ and if they open to Him, He enters in, but if they delay and will not, He departs from them. For the truth is not preached with swords or with darts, nor by means of soldiers; but by persuasion and counsel. But what persuasion is there where fear of the Emperor prevails? or what counsel is there, when he who withstands them receives at last banishment and death?” - Athanasius of Alexandria, “History of the Arians,” in St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Miles Atkinson and Archibald T. Robertson, vol. 4, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 281.

What I find to be just utterly amazing, is that Webbon and “The Other Paul” mock Christians who say we should use persuasion to change men’s hearts and minds as opposed to state power. Wouldn’t the men on this podcast of necessity have to argue against Athanasius here? When the topic of the Arian Resurgence is brought up, the men simply brush it off as “oh, well this was just their way of promoting Christianity over against paganism”.

The simple truth is that Christian thinkers must study history to learn from the past so as to guide their steps in the future. The only reason to study history is if you care about the future, and it seems to me that an obvious lesson which ought to be taken from these events is the shear danger of allowing the state to punish theological heretics, instead of being reserved to ensure protection against public blasphemy and society-subverting idolatry.

History is replete with examples of the negative ramifications of state-involvement in Christian doctrine. What about the fact of the Empress Irene using state-power to convene the 2nd Council of Nicaea in 787 to rule in favor of icons over and against the Council of Elvira (305) which had previously condemned the use of icons in the church? What about the Crusades in which you had Western Christian armies fighting against Eastern Christian cities? What about our reformers who were burned under the oppression of the Papacy? The persecution (and killing) of anabaptists under both Roman Catholic and Protestant powers?

There are just as many Roman Catholic Integralists running around now as there are Protestant Christian Nationalists. Do we just have to wait and see who wins? Webbon says that the small number of baptists killed is preferable to the current state of things (with millions of children murdered in the womb every year), but he has been exposed to enough good teaching to know that these are not our only two options. As I said in my comments about Stephen Wolfe, what if we learn from all of our history?

The Other Paul said that his response to those who criticise his position on the grounds of “well, what do you do is when someone else is in charge?” is to simply say that he is fighting for his version of Church and state to win, not someone else’s. This might sound cute to the guys who are all about power, Christian princes and winning, but it really means nothing. Because what we are pointing to is the fundamental danger of granting the state authority in matters of Christian doctrine.

Theonomy and Christian Reconstructionism provide us with an outline for a thoroughly Christian political ethic without the dangers of an established church or state involvement in theological disputes.

Top Down vs Bottom Up

There was also discussion in this podcast about cultural change top-down vs bottom-up. Webbon echoes Stephen Wolfe in his criticisms of postmillennial revivalism and those who believe that culture (and the state) will be changed via conversion and reformation as opposed to state-enforcement. But do we not see, from the history above, that top-down enforcement, while it may get you results quicker, is not long-lasting? It always breaks down when someone else is in power, and while a Christian Prince may bring Webbon some good things in his lifetime, he has no guarantee that this will be the case for his grandchildren when some other Prince has taken power.

Remember the Davidic covenant in 2 Samuel 7? The Lord promises a righteous king to rule His people forever. But in order for this to happen, you need an immortal, righteous king. Ultimately, we understand that this is pointing to the true Son of David (as in the Son of the Covenant) Jesus. David, though we would classify him as a good leader (despite his sins) fathered sons who were anything but righteous. This is seen in the rebellion of Absalom, but eventually all the division there would be between the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah. As a matter of fact, Biblical history is filled with top-down enforcements of righteousness not having long-lasting results. Webbon, at one point, cites Josiah as being an example of a righteous king who used his power for good, and while Josiah was, in fact, righteous—as soon as he died and his sons took power, they returned (once again) to wickedness (2 Kings 23:36-37). I recently preached through the book of Jonah, and while the king of Ninevah was granted repentance in Jonah’s day (Jonah 3:6) after his generation was gone, Ninevah returned to unrighteousness and God destroyed them (see the book of Nahum).

Webbon says he is postmillennial, so what he should recognize is that God has outlined in His word His intentions to draw people willingly to obedience, not via coercion. “Your people will offer themselves freely on the day of your power” (Psalm 110:3). This is not just another form of using eschatology to escape politics, as Wolfe claims, because the consistent postmillennial (especially the Theonomic reconstructionist) can advocate for righteous legislation in the here and now, as this differs greatly from the state forcing church attendance, punishing heresy or anything like that.

One Other Random Thought

Something that I just found to be very strange was Joel’s comments about the advantages of a centralized church structure, like what you have in Rome, over and against Protestantism. Around the 1 hour mark he says, “Protestantism… allows for anything goes”. Basically, it is the common Roman Catholic argument you hear all the time about how much division is brought about by Sola Scriptura. To be completely honest, I was stunned by these comments. I truly have no idea how a baptist (of all people) could make such a statement. Given Joel’s praise of both Rushdoony and heritage America, let me recommend to you some lectures from Rushdoony on the topic of the voluntary church in America (here and here). What Rushdoony contends is that a voluntary church, as opposed to a centralized state-church, leads to unity instead of disunity. Basically, because unity is no longer founded upon the outward structure of the church (think debates between credobaptists and paedobaptists, or independants vs Presbyterians) but the unity is founded upon the faith of the Christian religion. This is why I can have unity with my Presbyterian brothers, because even though we differ in externals, we are unified upon what really matters.

Is Webbon going to remain a Protestant? I pray he does. I am not saying these things to be mean or controversial, this is of genuine concern. We have seen lots of people running to Rome or Constantinople these past few years, the only sure way to prevent this is that men be grounded in the truth of Scripture, not merely focused upon outward things and politics, important though they may be.

1. Those interested in the Christology of the early church creeds can read my article here.

2. These are the years of the men’s reign, not their lives. This is a common way for historians to write about rulers and kings.