The Reformation of the Playground

The Establishment Mindset, the Pioneer, and Christian Nationalism

There are more Christians in the world today who think the Reformation was a bad idea than Christians who think it was a good idea.

Reformations were happening long before 1517. What we call “The Reformation” is what it is simply because it it was the most successful, the most comprehensive, the most controversial, and had the greatest cultural impact. The Reformation of the 16th century quite literally changed the world. Its effects are still felt in western culture today, and by extension—especially via the impact of Protestant missionaries, and the Roman Catholic missionaries reacting to the Reformation—across the rest of the world too. It wasn’t just a church reformation, it was—ultimately—a socio-political reformation. It really did change the world. If it hadn’t, we probably wouldn’t still be talking about it today.

The most trenchant Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic critics see the Reformation as the harbinger of everything presently going wrong in the western world today, an event that should be mourned rather than celebrated. For such critics, the Reformation is viewed as a time in which Church unity was ravaged by individualism, and where the door was opened to modern liberalism in which all prior ecclesiastical authorities, traditions, and norms may now be all too easily and brazenly undermined or overthrown. The way many modern evangelicals go about their business, you can understand how they come to see things this way.

Even Kierkegaard, who was technically a “Lutheran”, and had many good things to say about Luther, also referred to Luther as “a protégé of secularity”. What he meant by this was not that Luther was on the Devil’s side, but that he had unwittingly set in motion a process by which Christianity would become “cheap”, acclimatised to the social furniture of secular modernity, gutted of its roots, branches, and sacrificial demands (for more on this, see my discussion of Luther, Kierkegaard, and Christendom with Bob of Speaker’s Corner).

It is undoubtedly the case that antinomian “cheap grace” is one product of the Protestant reformation. But this does not render Luther’s act unnecessary, nor does it mean that it should not be celebrated and championed as the laudable act of courage that it was. God’s people have always been called to stand upon the truth in the face of fashionable lies, half-truths, compromises, idolatries, and abominations. This was something Kierkegaard himself was well known to do too, of course.

Reformations have been necessary for as long as there has been compromise to address, for as long as there has been corruption of authority, for as long as kingdom foundations have been forgotten, for as long as the key truths have been obscured. God’s church—that is, His people—have needed reformation ever since God first called prophets to exhort Israel to return to His Word when it was ignored, or called kings to find His Word when it had been lost, or builders to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem in light of His Word, or apostles to rebuke leaders when His Word had been confused with another.

The Reformation is not really about “Protestants versus Roman Catholics”. It’s about holding fast to the Word of God over and against human corruption and compromise. Will we keep believing what He said, or not? Will we keep obeying, or not? Will we keep hearing, or not? Will we do what we hear, or not? In every generation there have always been religious establishments all too keen to publicly “market” the things of God whilst simultaneously undermining them.

We have seen many examples of such hypocrisy within “Protestant” churches and movements in our own time. Many of us are still trying to come to terms with the many “evangelical” authorities in our time whom we thought we could trust, but no longer can. I have described this as a unique time of shifting sands in more ways than one. Many are still in flux, unable to settle as easily in the “tribes” with whom they once walked.

In light of this great distrust in evangelical authorities and institutions, the theologian, Alastair Roberts, recently made an intriguing critique of the multi-stringed movement/concept often known as Christian Nationalism (CN), a movement which has recently sprung up in light of the decline of the West and the compromises of the Church. Roberts says:

Christian Nationalism has positioned itself as a populist, activist, and tribalist movement, is driven by pamphleteers rather than theorists and philosophers, and is pitched to a non-academic audience…

Considered as a retrieval movement, it tends more to highly selective quote-mining, rather than close and broad historical reading. It hasn't presented much of a case for itself within the academy, and respectfully submitted itself to the sort of testing this would entail.

Its tendency to belligerence, conspiracism, anti-elitism, and dissidence make it unsuited to function in the sorts of institutions and circles…that require a very different set of norms of conduct…

CN leaders are often most visible behaving immaturely in the company of unsavoury Twitter anons… CN has proved manifestly incapable of policing its own ranks. Because it is an online populist movement, its leading figures tend to be short-lived young provocateurs and its rank and file are mostly known for being abusive and opinions they wouldn't share under their real names.

The 'leaders' of the movement either refuse to or cannot police the unruly movement that surrounds them. Any critical engagement with these men is usually followed by a torrent of abuse from a host of scoffers. It makes the movement inimical to serious and respectful interaction.

Many of CN's problems arise from the cultural forces and movements that drive and provoke it. It both responds to and intensifies various dysfunctions of evangelicalism, not least evangelicalism's populism, dearth of serious political thought, and forgetfulness of any tradition.

Besides having little coherent political theology, evangelicalism's practical politics are often reactive and piecemeal applications of simplistic moralist impulses untested by deeper reflection and deliberation and untethered from any serious tradition of thought on the matter.

In such a context, CN can behave like the bully on the playground, mostly facing weak and relatively clueless opposition. However, CN's home is the playground and where childish opposition and behaviour are no longer the norm, its own weakness soon becomes evident.

One of the intriguing things about this critique is that similar things would certainly have been said about Luther & co too. Luther may be celebrated by many evangelical churches today (particularly on Reformation Day) but he would probably also be cancelled and/or placed under church discipline by most of them too! Modern Protestantism abounds in such ironies. It “officially” celebrates the Reformation—which began as a populist, pamphleteering movement led by a rather rude German monk—and then proceeds to castigate anything that resembles its characteristics in any subsequent era once the battle lines have changed.

I’m certainly not comparing all strands of Christian Nationalism to the Reformation. Some strands of it may actually be in danger of replacing the Word of God with idolatrous counterfeits. But I do think it’s the closest movement we’ve seen in a while which could enact the kind of monumental ecclesio-political shift that was seen at the time of the Reformation. CN is catalysing new seams of thinking and action in numerous places across the West at present. These may seem American-centric to some, but they actually traverse different geographical and intellectual contexts, drawing threads together in unexpected places, even with many teething problems and aberrations along the way. People are noticing the same problems at the same time and recognising similar solutions that have long been forgotten or suppressed.

It’s true, for sure, that there are also problems in the very-online behaviour of some who identify as “CN”, but Roberts’ view of this is also somewhat myopic, failing to see the broader trends to which Christian Nationalism as a concept, ultimately points. The particulars of Christian Nationalism can be discussed in more detail another time, of course (see the “Christendom” episode of the podcast for a starter). The larger issue here is the way in which Roberts’ critique misunderstands the way established systems which are desperately in need of reform often conspire to produce just the kind of condescending response he gives, to those who might actually threaten to bring genuine “reform” to the system.

To take Roberts’ analogy that CN is “the bully in the playground”, for example, is the answer that they learn to “play nice” with the sensible children by conforming to the existing patterns and conventions of the playground? Such critiques are not only uncharitable at root but they fail to notice that there may be life beyond the playground and its “ways” of operating.

There are some who believe themselves to be looking down on the “bullies in the playground” beckoning them to grow up, who have yet to realise that they themselves haven’t actually escaped the playground at all. They’ve merely moved to what they believe to a different part of the playground. It may seem to be a “higher plane” but it’s still the playground, and still exhibiting correspondingly unwise behaviour, even when dressed in more sophisticated garb.

The pioneer spirit germane to those made free in Christ does not submit to the rules of the playground, but to Christ alone. This does not mean unbridled freedom, of course, nor rejection of all ecclesiastical authority per se (as some have been led to believe), but certainly it means freedom from any human systematic tyranny which stands against the Word of God and the lordship of Christ. This is the freedom that enables Christians to see a way beyond the boundaries of the established “playground” that lay before them, rather than shrinking back before them in fear simply because they are there. Without the freedom to look beyond the boundaries of the societal or ecclesial playground we would never have had a Reformation, nor a Great Awakening, nor even a United States, to name just a handful of events in recent history which were neither “sanctioned” by the establishment, nor “predictable”, nor entirely “plannable” in advance.

Perhaps some may think the world would have been better without such pioneer ventures (the French Revolution and its numerous offshoots/effects would be an obvious general socio-political counterpoint). But I expect most would rightly say that those Christians who successfully pioneered beyond the existing rules and boundaries of the compromised “playground” achieved far more good in the long run than those who first sought to play by its rules and wait for academic approval from the establishment before doing what needed to be done.

Whilst I'm not unsympathetic to the problems of radicalism or extremism which often ensue when ideas are not critiqued according to reasonable standards of discourse, it is manifestly obvious that one of the very problems in our time is that the need for such validation from the compromised establishment—as when Roberts calls upon CN to “respectfully submit itself” to the University for “testing”—may itself be a symptom of the disease rather than the cure. In Kierkegaard’s terms, the hospital is no longer good for the truly sick because the poison is in the building.

Whilst some of the CN pioneers must also be corrected—including on some of the issues to which Roberts alludes—it will not do to simply tell them to “play well with the others” when the entire point of the problem they are rightly addressing lies with those who have played only too well with the others and can no longer see the extent to which they have become hopelessly compromised as a result. The “long term” slow change they hoped to bring about only served to soften them into the ways of the system. They become the soldiers in the trojan horse that either fell asleep inside the horse, or once they got out, chose to settle down in the city for a while, altogether forgetting they were meant to conquer it.

The Reformation was quite obviously not a carte blanche invitation to radicalise against all tradition and precedent. Luther did “police” radicals to his Right and Left, and was himself corrected by those who came after him, and even many who laboured alongside him. The same will be the case within subsequent reformational movements like Christian Nationalism. But as much as critiques from existing established figures and paradigms must be heeded—especially if we aim to be in sync with the whole counsel of God, which calls us to honour our fathers, for example—we must remember something that remains fundamentally crucial in all of this: with respect to the existing establishment, pioneers will always be, on some level, “unauthorised”.

If Luther had first asked for permission from the dinner ladies in the playground if he could please nail the 95 theses to the Wittenberg door, what do you think they would have told him? What form are you supposed to fill in in order to gain approval to start a Reformation? This is why reformations are such dangerous things. But this does not make them any less necessary, nor any less inevitable, when the time comes.

---

For more on this theme, earlier this year I wrote a piece about the meaning of “reformational” thinking and action (now with audio, thanks to PJ Gunby) and with an accompanying podcast episode.

Also look out for Part II of “The Cost of Our Cultural ‘Engagement’” coming soon…