I forgot to say in my previous post that Chapters 1-4 in Douglas Wilson’s Mere Christendom constitute Part 1, entitled, “Where We Are Now.” Therefore, according to Wilson in Chapter 1, “where we are now” in America is dealing with a wicked secular government that has situated itself as the “god of the system” and is in the process of violating those “inalienable rights” that the Constitution states come from our Creator. Here in Part 3 of my book analysis, I’m going to touch upon the next three chapters in Wilson’s book. So, without further ado…
Chapter 2: “Taxation”
Wilson begins chapter 2 by saying, “One of the most precious possessions a government has is its moral legitimacy. When they have it, taxes are paid, for the most part, voluntarily” (21). Why is that? Obviously because the government will be responsible with the taxes they collect and use those taxes for the betterment of society and doing its Constitutionally prescribed duties. The main problem Wilson has with taxation today in the United States is that, according to him, taxes are excessive, and the government is wholly irresponsible with the tax money it collects. He writes, “It is a sin to believe that our government is anything other than a pirate ship of the thieves, by the thieves, and for the thieves. It is a sin to go on believing the lies when we have no good reason to” (23).
Therefore, Wilson states three basic criteria that should regulate governmental taxation. First, “the level of taxation must not rival God” (meaning taxes shouldn’t exceed the 10% tithe). Second, “the taxes need to be levied, in the main, so that the rulers can perform the functions that God requires them to perform.” And third, “the taxes must be lawful and in accordance with the established constitution of the people.” Putting all that together, Wilson’s basic argument is that tax money should go toward the government performing its Constitutional duties, and if they are responsible in executing those duties, taxation is fair and good.But when the government is irresponsible in the execution of its duties, or if it uses taxes on things that it has no business doing, that is when taxation becomes theft.
Joel’s Reaction
Overall, I have to say I largely agree with most of what Wilson says here, although I don’t think a 10% tax limit is really “biblical.” I think rates can be squishy. For me, the big question is whether or not the government is using tax money responsibly. And for me, the answer to that question is a BIG NO. Honestly, this shouldn’t really even be a partisan issue. It is blatantly obvious. I remember back around 2008, when the national debt reached $10 million, I was horrified—government spending was out of control. Today, the national debt is over $31 trillion, and it is on pace to increase $1 trillion every 100 days.
Some might say, “Oh, that just means we need higher taxes on the super rich.” Here’s something to consider. As of November 2023, there were 741 billionaires in the United States with a total of $5.2 trillion between them all. If you taxed those 741 billionaires 100%–literally took away all their money—that $5.2 trillion would only over the national debt accumulated over the past four years. What does that tell you? It tells me that even if we taxed the “top 1%” at 100%, our government would still spending money like a drunken sailor in Thailand.
Our government isn’t just spending the currently collected taxes, it is spending the projected collected taxes of our children and grandchildren, and then some. And the things it is spending our taxes on aren’t what it should be spending our taxes on. That’s irresponsible spending. We have lifetime politicians who have somehow become multi-millionaires while in Congress—how is that possible, expect that that made millions in the stock market based on insider information. That’s corruption.
Simply put, yes, I agree with most of Wilson’s assessment on the issue of taxation. If the government was responsible and honest with its taxation, I’d have no problem with it. But it isn’t. Criticizing the government on this issue isn’t “Christian nationalism” in any sense. It is common sense.
Chapter 3: “Tactics of the Enemy”
In Chapter 3, Wilson basically criticizes the rhetorical “tactics” of “the enemy,” which for Wilson means current Progressivism. The first tactic he addresses is the attaching “-phobia” on to anything you want to shut people up about. If one talks about the dangers of militant Islam, that’s Islamophobia. If someone objects to the current push of trangenderism and sex-assignment surgery of young children, that’s transphobia. If someone argues for traditional marriage, that’s homophobia. The point of that rhetoric is to win the argument by accusing that other person of being a bigoted monster. Hence, “the word phobia is a weapon” (38). The upshot of this, Wilson says, is the practical removal of Christianity and Jesus from the public square. That, Wilson says, is by design: “If there is no God above Caesar, then how do we keep Caesar from declaring himself god?” (42).
Wilson also points out the eroding of the general principles of the rule of law, namely the importance of due process, the presumption of innocence, and hearing both sides before giving a ruling. The push these days, he says, is to accuse someone Progressives don’t like of being some kind of hateful monster, and that person’s life is destroyed without due process. That person is not presumed innocent until proven guilty—he’s presumed guilty until proven innocent. We can’t do that. We can’t do an end around of due process in order to “get at the [perceived] devil.” Wilson says that tendency to circumvent the law to get to “perceived devils” is actually “the devil…mowing down the laws of many centuries in order to get at us” (47).
Joel’s Reaction
This chapter can be tricky to comment on, because it touches upon controversial issues. Still, I feel Wilson makes some valid points. It is true that there is a current trend of “othering” and demonizing people with the attaching of “-phobia” onto certain terms. Simply because one has a certain opinion concerning certain political/social issues (i.e. gay marriage, biological men who identify as woman who want to play in women’s sports, Islamic terrorism) does not automatically make one homophobic, transphobic, or Islamophobic. If you think “all Muslims are terrorists,” or “all gays and transgenders are pedophiles,” then yes, that’s pretty Islamophobic, homophobic, and transphobic.
A clear-thinking adult can make a distinction between the two, but a politically driven idealogue who wants to demonize all perceived political opposition won’t. Now, to be fair, this kind of ideological demonization is not the sole domain of the current “progressive left.” Far right Fundamentalists have their own brand of this sort of thing. I should know—when my former young earth creationist headmaster found out I didn’t agree with the YECist Ken Ham, he found a blog post of mine where I was trying to spell out what the Bible actually says about homosexuality/same sex sexual activity. I made the distinction between attraction and actual physical sex, and he essentially accused me of “promoting homosexuality.” Long story short, political idealogues label and demonize. Wilson is right—this is happening in our modern, secularized, progressive society…but it happens among other groups as well. It isn’t solely a “secular” problem.
Chapter 4: “Jesus Mobs” (and my reaction in one)
Chapter 4 is, in my opinion, one of the most interesting and surprising chapters in the book. Wilson begins by acknowledging the “mob-like mentality” in America today—everyone of every political bent is easily whipped up in the “mob mentality” of their given reactionary group. This is true across the board. Wilson makes a rather insightful connection between the competing political groups in America today with the various sects within second Temple Judaism of Jesus’ day: Pharisees, Sadducees, the Herodians…and “the crowds.” He points out that groups like the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians were often said to be “afraid of the crowds,” because “the crowds” loved Jesus.
At the same time, we are also told that Jesus didn’t entrust himself to “the crowds.” He knew that while there were genuine followers and disciples, most of “the crowds” were driven by their own assumptions, biases, and agendas, and where not truly “his sheep.” Given that, Wilson points out that neither Jesus nor his disciples ever go around, sheepishly apologizing for and denouncing the violent threats that were coming from “the crowds.” Why? Because those crowds weren’t his—he didn’t have anything to do with them.
Wilson’s point about some of the current “Jesus mobs” that are doing and threatening bad things is that if you are a true follower of Christ, you don’t “owe” anyone an apology for the words or actions of a mob you have nothing to do with. Wilson takes Russell Moore to task for publicly apologizing for “Viking Man” (I think he means that “Q Anon Shaman” guy). Why? What has Viking Man have to do with Christianity? Why should a Christian apologize for him? The same goes for the Proud Boys. Wilson writes, “So let us say that the Proud Boys do something that both you and your wife to be less than enchanting. Not what you would have done. You did not do cartwheels when you heard about it. Should you feel terrible about your complicity? No. Why should you? You are not complicit” (63).
I’ve gotta admit, that is a valid point!
Wilson then launches into something I didn’t see coming. I’ve never truly read up on “Christian Nationalism,” but I have been told that Christian Nationalists have sold their souls to worship Trump and they want to impose Deuteronomistic Law on the country. Okay…here’s what Wilson wrote that surprised me (I’ll quote in full):
“Not all churches are healthy. Don’t join a diseased one. There are two kinds of syncretism we [Christians] must deal with. One of them is fairly obvious, at least to those outside the evangelical world of Trump Love. If you have a flag with Jesus on it, and Jesus is wearing a MAGA hat, then you fall into this category, and you need to put away your grotesque idols. You need to topple these small deities of an Americana amalgam. If your church revolves around the Fourth of July, then this is your religion, which means that it is your damnation.”
I wrote a big “AMEN!” in the margin. Wilson is spot on there. And quite frankly, reading such a statement coming from a “Christian Nationalist” made me question all the things my more liberal acquaintances were saying about Christian Nationalists. Still, it must be said that not everyone who voted for Trump is a lunatic “Trump Worshipper.” But Wilson is not finished. He also calls out the kind of group that excuses things like the BLM riots (another kind of “mob”). He says both groups are going in the same direction—“a long, slow spiral into the abyss with no bottom” (58). I have to say, he’s not wrong.
He then points out something that I have personally experienced over the past eight years—the tendency for many on “the Left” to immediately verbally tar-and-feather anyone who questions anything on the Left as being a “Trump worshipper,” or a “racist” or “misogynist,” no matter how many times you say you’re not a fan of Trump. That kind of attempted verbal emasculation is an attempt to shut you up or just “go along” with whatever they’re pushing. Wilson quotes Theodore Dalrymple on this point: “A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to” (61).
Wilson ends Chapter 4 (and Part 1) with (again) an actual insightful and true observation: “We have to deal with these crowds, surging back and forth all around us. We might agree with something they do, we might be appalled by something else they do. We might debate with some of them, try to teach some of them, and call the cops on others. But we need not feel bad if we are right there in the middle of these tumultuous times, and we are actually part of a complicated Venn diagram. We need not feel bad about it, because we worship Almighty God on a weekly basis, in the name of Jesus Christ, and that is where our identity is” (63).
Again…amen to that.
Conclusion Thus Far for Part 1
Based on what I have been told about Douglas Wilson, I began reading Mere Christendom thinking I would be tearing it apart. In Part 1, though, to my surprise, I found much of his assessment of “where we are now” pretty insightful and accurate. And the truth of that last paragraph I quoted is why Christians, regardless of their political leanings, should refuse to take part in the bomb-throwing that is just part of the political landscape these days. If you find yourself exalting any political leader or making excuses for that political leader’s clear problematic actions, if you find yourself gleefully demonizing any political leader that you’ve swallowed sensationalistic, hateful labels of…you might be a member of one of “the crowds” Jesus didn’t entrust himself to.
We are, in fact, living in tumultuous times, but if you take the time to talk with and understand people in your everyday life that you might politically disagree, you’ll find you actually agree on quite a bit, and some of those “other people” might be pretty nice people. Some clearly aren’t…but many are.
What I’ve learned thus far in Part 1 about Douglas Wilson is that I agree with much of his assessment of the current state of things…not entirely, but a lot of it. And I haven’t read anything I’d deem racist, misogynistic, patriarchal, or any “-phobic” yet. Imagine that. It’s amazing what can happen when you try to honestly engage with something someone actually says, and go one the labels that other people scream about that person.
While I understand the taxation issue to be a cause of concern or debate, putting that into this CN context seems antithetical to Jesus’ teaching, specifically the “render to Caesar…” which was specifically related to taxation.
Wilson does address that. Basically, we should pay taxes to the government as long as it is using that tax money to fulfill its Constitutional responsibilities. When it takes our tax money as uses them in pet projects that do not benefit society at all, it no longer is taxation, but rather theft. I think that can be a valid point.