Howse Encourages MacArthur to Whore the Christian Religion For Politics:

Brannon Howse has responded to John MacArthur's notion that America was conceived in sin. As I've noted before, how to properly understand Romans 13 is something over which traditional biblical Christians can reasonably disagree. The easiest way to say that God permits revolt against tyranny is to become a liberal cafeteria Christian and just disregard that scripture. Traditional Christians, rather, have the burden believing the infallibility of the entire Book and have to deal with every word of it as binding.

Howse is not as charitable as I am; rather, he argues the only proper way to understand Romans 13 is the interpretation that holds revolt against tyrannical government is permitted. As he reacts to MacArthur's position:

When you combine a lack of knowledge about the American Revolution with a false interpretation of Romans 13, you end up with good conservative Christians adding to the misinformation about our Founders and believing that America was not established under God but by an un-Christian rebellion.

[...]

The Founding Fathers did not violate New Testament principles when they instituted American independence, and it is critical that we close ranks on this fundamental issue. Our nation was founded under God’s guiding hand—not in spite of it. Whether or not we continue in the godly heritage of the first Americans is a vital concern, but it’s one that should be debated between “us” and “them,” not between “us” and “us.”

What arrogance it is for Howse to call MacArthur's interpretation of Romans 13 "false." MacArthur has probably forgotten more Bible verses and more about the history of orthodox Christian theology than Howse will ever know. MacArthur is aware, as Howse should be, that Christianity is a lot older than America. And an orthodox Christian's duty is to his religion before his country. I don't even need to chime in as the evangelicals at Worldview Weekend are commenting, many of whom are aware of the strong tradition MacArthur's position has in the history of orthodox Christian thought, and the fidelity that it pays to the plain meaning of the Bible's text. As one of them writes:

Daniel and the Hebrew midwives did not work toward establishing their own order of government. They continued to place themselves under the governing authority even in the midst of their civil disobedience. Trying to compare Moses leading the children of Israel out of Egypt with the Founding Fathers leading a revolution against England falls short as well. Moses was not acting on theological/philosophical ideals, but upon direct revelations from God. When Paul and the other early church leaders wrote to the first Christians they were not concerned with establishing a "Christian" nation, but with proclaiming the Gospel and giving instruction for living out the Christian life. Rome was far more wicked than England, yet Paul never urges revolt against them. I am not saying that America is a bad country or a evil nation; only that it is not above questioning or critique. I love my country and thank God that I am able to call America my home. However, my loyalty is to Christ and the Gospel not Democracy and Capitalism.

And other:

If Nero, who was in power when Romans was written, was not beyond the "endorsement" of God as per the given instructions, then how is it incredible that King George might also be countenanced in the book of Romans?

Indeed, unlike Nero, King George III was a "Christian" King, as the Founders so referred to him.

Also problematic for Howse is that he turns to David Barton for authority over John MacArthur. David Barton is notorious for whoring the Christian religion for the sake of Republican politics and in many ways has gotten biblical Christians like Howse and the Worldview Weekend crowd in a mess, painted them into a corner, by conflating Americanism, traditional Christianity, and the Republican Party as interchangeable.

Here is an example of Barton's whoring the Christian religion while stumping for the Roman Catholic Sam Brownback. (Why did I emphasis "Roman Catholic"? This message may not sound nice -- and it illustrates the exclusiveness of Protestant fundamentalism that makes this creed totally personally unacceptable to me; but the fact is, historically, evangelicals have NOT thought of the Roman Catholics as "real Christians" and vice-versa; the notion that evangelicals and Roman Catholics are united in the Body of Christ is a radical innovation of the modern era, and reflects the egalitarian, zeitgeist of our modern liberal democratic age as well as an attempt for socially conservative Roman Catholics and evangelical Protestants to unite for political purposes to counter the forces of secular liberalism).



The first thing Barton says is that John Adams gave a list of people responsible for the American Revolution and they were all Christians, and ministers of the gospel and we don't study them much today. Then he reads the list of names of these "Christians," and they are: Samuel Cooper, Jonathan Mayhew, George Whitefield, and Charles Chauncy. The problem is, according to the way Barton, Howse, and MacArthur understand Christianity, only ONE on that list was a Christian: George Whitefield. Cooper, Mayhew, Chauncy and Adams himself were theological unitarians. Whatever the differences between evangelicals and Catholics, at least they have a common ground in Trinitarian orthodoxy. Most of the names Barton cites as Christians denied those orthodox tenets and thus were far more removed from "Christianity" than are Roman Catholics, according to the way evangelicals understand "Christianity."

Either Barton knows what these guys believed in and is deceiving orthodox Christians into believing Adams et al. were "real Christians," or he is ignorant of what they believed.

John MacArthur would never make such an error or peddle such ignorance.

For those of us who are secular, or theologically liberal minded, much of this might not seem like a big deal. Roman Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons, JWs, Arians, Socinians, they all call themselves and understand themselves to be "Christians," so what's the big deal? That's "broad-path," liberal, nominal Christianity. As I have studied orthodox Christianity, the "narrowness" IS a big deal. Your soul depends on getting these issues right. And it's the political whoring like we've seen from David Barton that likely leads folks astray into all sorts of what evangelicals would consider theological errors, some of which are so serious they can damn the soul (like you can be a real Christian and believe Jesus is not fully God, like J. Adams, Mayhew, Cooper, and Chauncy did).