Christ or Country? | Paul Miller, Jeff Shafer, Tim Harmon, Douglas Wilson | Disputatio 2024-25

In this engaging disputatio session, Dr. Paul Miller critiques Christian nationalism in a lively debate featuring responses from Dr. Jeff Shafer, Dr. Tim Harmon, and Doug Wilson. Dr. Miller defines Christian nationalism as the belief that America should be governed as a Christian nation, cautioning against the dangers of conflating church and state. He emphasizes the risks of placing undue trust in governmental authority, highlighting the potential for incompetence and malice in political leaders.
Dr. Shafer responds by challenging Dr. Miller's call for neutrality, arguing that Christians must actively promote their beliefs in the public square. Dr. Harmon explores the implications of governance under natural law, emphasizing the importance of moral clarity in political engagement. Meanwhile, Doug Wilson raises concerns about the consequences of a purely neutral stance, questioning whether it effectively addresses the challenges faced by Christian communities today.
Apply to NSA here: nsa.edu/apply
Give to NSA here: nsa.edu/give

[@WorshipVideo]

Dr Miller's final response to Doug Wilson's question about Natural Law really shows what a huge problem he has. Elections? Really? Elections are the best a society can do?

[@ehudsdagger5619]

Was there any dialogue on this topic with these speakers? Was there, for a lack of better words, any cross-examination? If so, where can I find it?

[@spartakos3178]

It's asking Christ to bless the undertaking of taking your country for Christ.

[@darrenwise8528]

While I personally think Saul is a good example of the state overstepping its bounds, I thought his argument was based on the fact that only the Noahic covenant was made with all of humanity, while the others were exclusive?

[@Avid4444]

What are the distinctives of "the natural religion" that would enable us to identify it, especially in light of the multitude of apparent expressions thereof present in the world? If such a religion exists, then what gives rise to the plethora of misalignments between various expressions of it? TBH, the argument seems a spurious representation of the "spirit of the age," which is now and has ever been hostile to Christ.

[@angeloarquiza2023]

Will the dialogue be posted as well?

[@jdschuncke]

Dr. Miller might be wrong, but he does make being wrong sound really good.

[@darrenwise8528]

After reading Genesis 3, Romans 1, and just a bit of history, I find it difficult to believe that we would be able to produce the right training necessary to help people discern natural law "correctly".

[@HaveYouTriedRumble]

💯

[@jackcrow1204]

This seems like a denial of general revelation Of course, sinners would incorrectly interpret the natural law But they would do so to different degrees, with some being fairly close

[@hmgodwin]

Cant we ban Nazi's according to natural law? If natural law is the foundation of our public morality/laws then various claims: religious and non religious should be ignored or banned if we actually believe natural law has actual content that we can know.

[@chrismaldonado8999]

What if the Nazis disagree with that on the basis of natural law? We necessarily return to the question of what objective standard we are using to base our understanding of natural law. What law giver are we using as the source of what we come to recognize as natural law? It sounds to me like Miller must rest on Thomas Jefferson’s deistic conception of an ethereal creator. My understanding is TJ openly denied the trinity, which means his deistic conception of God is heretical.

[@georgeluke6382]

1:17:42 Just seems an impossible way to live. If you say only a natural law, given via education, can lead to common public morality, the question goes back to education around what values, and on what texts/ways of life? Neat to see the chartiy, but the argument from Dr. Miller, while well intentioned, seemed premised on fear of the alternative, not on positive careful reasoning from the texts. Dr. Harmon's theological rebuttal was especially helpful to show that some kind of dispensational universal change from the "times of ignorance" to the right-now requirement of surrender to Jesus as YHWH and Lord, was helpful to hear clearly. There is no appeal to merely surrendering to the law of Noah.

[@interestedmeow]

Where fools hear fear and scoff, the discerning understand they are hearing the bold proclamation of Wisdom herself.

[@williamboone8992]

"Might look like an election" ...well what it actually looks like is an unfair election. Remedy? Revolt. You advocating revolt in the name of natural law? This guy is SO radical!😂

[@thekirkwoodcenter]

Natural law has been followed to varying degrees in human history. There have been better and worse non-Christian nations and cultures: more moral and less moral societies. If the Noahide laws were enforced (because they clearly exist, de re), three major political issues would be immediately resolved: the nature of marriage (e.g., proles, fides, sacramentum), the value of human life (including the unborn and elderly), and the distinction between men and women. If the government were to enforce the Natural Law in these three arenas of human existence, would we still have problems? Of course. But it is these three issues that are fundamentally driving all our discussions about Christian Nationalism. We would not be talking about Christian Nationalism if the Natural Law was being enforced, because none of these fundamental anthropological truths would be questioned. That said, the question for Miller is this: what does one do in a culture that has not just rejected the special revelation of God in Christianity, but that also has rejected the Natural Law?

[@interestedmeow]

Doug’s response to a well put together argument is to make fun of things that didn’t comprise the substance of the argument to reassure his biased audience that they need not think too hard about what Dr Miller laid out in a thoughtful and serious manner. Which is surprising as that goes counter-grain to the stated purpose of this dialogue. When they guy who’s been serious about this topic for decades can only respond with a standup routine in rebuttal to a measured counter-argument, it’s obvious he’s standing on the downhill side of the debate. How do I know this? Watching Wilson debate Hitchens.

[@sawyeranderson1394]

That is a silly critique. Doug, as has just been displayed to you, is a jovial character. Therefore, he was acting as such. You can plainly see Paul laughing along with Doug's joking. It is not as if Paul's argument/points were disrespectfully handled or disregard. Two speakers provided counter-arguments seriously addressing Paul Miller's claims and then established and defended the contrary perspective before Doug had even taken the stage. Doug fairly and appropriately interacted with Paul's points. If the best critique you have is that he made people laugh, I am thoroughly unconvinced.

[@1Whipperin]

Assembling for the sole purpose of worship, as seen in many modern churches, is unbiblical. Nowhere in the New Testament do we find the concept of gathering as an institution for ritualistic worship. Instead, believers are called to worship God individually in spirit and truth (John 4:23-24), transcending the need for a formalized, structured assembly. Early Christian gatherings focused on mutual edification, sharing, and living out faith, not on formal worship services. The elevation of a weekly assembly for worship has distorted the biblical model, reducing active, daily discipleship to a mere ceremonial act, which Jesus never endorsed.