Empires of Dirt: Secularism, Radical Islam, and the Mere Christendom Alternative

by Douglas Wilson

As it self-destructs, the strategy of secularism (the idea that nations can be religiously neutral) is splitting between American exceptionalism and radical Islam. American exceptionalism, the belief that "America" is more than a nation, is folly. Radical Islam is obviously wrong as well, but Muslims at least own the nature of the current cultural conflict. You must follow somebody, whether its Allah, the State, or Jesus Christ.

This important and timely book is an analysis of the changing face of religion and politics and also an extended argument for Christian expression of faith in Jesus Christ. This does not mean a withdrawal from politics to our own communities and churches. Instead, we Christians must take what we have learned from the wreck of secularism and build a Christendom of the New Foundation: A network of nations bound together by a formal, public, civic acknowledgement of the lordship of Jesus Christ and the fundamental truth of the Apostles' Creed.

"And you could have it all,
My empire of dirt..."
Nine Inch Nails
Johnny Cash

Genres: Theology, Cultural, Politics, Nonfiction, Christianity, Church, Islam

276 pages, Paperback

First published December 1, 2013

About the author

I write in order to make the little voices in my head go away. Thus far it hasn't worked.

Reviews

[Peter Jones · Rating 4 out of 5]

Typical Wilson and I mean that as a compliment. A solid layman's/pastoral introduction to what a Christian nation or society might look like. He does a great job answering various retreatist ideas as well as those who want to change culture...sort of. His post-millennialism helps, as does his ability to use logic. He also does not expect too much. It is a mere Christendom. But I would take his vision over 95% of what is being pushed by reformed Christians these days.

[Matthew Huff · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read another reviewer who labeled this perhaps the most important book Wilson has written, and I am more than happy to throw my support behind such high praise.

I am an ardent fan of Wilson's and have read several of his books; Empires of Dirt, however, is one of the greatest, timeliest, and most extraordinary of his expressions to date. His grasp of America's present ills is sure, and his biblical, postmillennial, optimistic vision of mere Christendom a delicious remedy.

Wilson argues for the engagement of all Christians in reclaiming the world for King Jesus, affirming that, as I once heard Wilson quip, if Christ is not Lord of all, then He is not Lord at all.

This book is simply magnificent, though if you are new to Wilson's style, I would recommend you start with Angels in the Architecture or Rules for Reformers first.

[Rick Davis · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a great book that deserves to be widely read. It appears that Wilson aims this book at a fairly narrow readership, conservative Presbyterians familiar with the R2K controversy surrounding Westminster West, which is a bit of a shame. There are many important ideas in this book that would benefit a broad evangelical audience.

[Mark Christenson · Rating 5 out of 5]

“If the Church is not transforming the culture around her, then the culture around her is transforming the Church.” Chapter 8 was phenomenal. Five out of five. Thanks Doug.

[Jesse · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good Critique of Anabaptists and R2K

Great insights into our culture and our sins. Helpful explanation of theonomy and mere Christendom. Wilson also does well critiquing anabaptist politics and R2K politics. Both of those errors are dead ends.

[jacob van sickle · Rating 5 out of 5]

In this book Wilson proposes a Mere Christendom in the face of the Islamic and secular onslaught. He argues for a transformationalist view of cultural engagement, seeing Christ as Lord of all culture not just the church. Although I think Wilson could give other Christ and culture paradigms more credit, his critiques land.

I love the idea of a Mere Christendom and have faith that it can happen. I just doubt that I’ll see it. Maybe my great grand children will blow off the dust of this book some day, and find it to be the case.

[Jason Garwood · Rating 5 out of 5]

An absolutely brilliant book. Once again, Doug has given postmillennialism some teeth. Which is convenient because many of us are tired of gumming around.

My favorite book of 2016, hands down.

[Joshua Jenkins · Rating 5 out of 5]

4.5 stars. Up with Christendom.

[Joshua Arnold · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was an easy read

It was an easy read, but his writing style is just too difficult to really follow for me sometimes. It seems that he assumes the reader knows all the terms he uses, and a lot of times his explanations just leave me more confused than before, and uninterested to try to figure it out.

I still enjoyed the read for the most part, though. I still gathered some insights on some things that helps me. If it was a deeper theological work, I would have abhorred it, because of how many times he ends a paragraph with some funny metaphor that really could only be described as strange and uninteresting.

I didn’t mind when I didn’t understand something, because it seemed so insignificant, that if I didn’t understand it, it wouldn’t really effect the overall reading.
It would be nice if he explained the terms he uses more, and didn’t use so many weird metaphors that seem to over-the-top, and sometimes just pointless. “Just tell me what you mean like a normal person so I can follow your line of thinking easier” is what I’m left thinking.

I plan to read more of his books, God willing, but I will probably set the book down and quit reading it if I see this sort of stuff going on still by the 4th chapter of the book.

[Sean Higgins · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read this again with our elders. Got more out of it the second time...and I'm still a Dispensationalist. Ha!

--------------------

This is a two-by-four book in two ways.

First, it is a two-by-four hit to the head for those (like I have been) who believe Jesus doesn't care about the public square let alone if presidents, kings, and justices rule in His name. As Wilson asks, if Jesus doesn't care about those things, where does it say that in the Bible? If Jesus does care, then shouldn't we? Uh, yes. Ow.

Second, it is a two-by-four in terms of providing basic worldview building materials. There are not many ornaments on the walls such as proposed plans and policies for a new Christendom, but that is because we need to agree that there should be walls to begin with. Choosing artwork is not the first priority when the house is in rubbles, like our house is.

I still don't think that postmillennialism or peadobaptism are requisite for living under the lordship of Christ--as Wilson argues--but this book is a fantastic goad to hope and obedience in the world.

[Jacob Rush · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must read for any Christian who wants to think biblically and historically about Christians and culture. Doug here ties together many themes and musings he's had on the topics of postmillennialism, culture, theonomy, and Christendom, and does it in a way that is thoughtful, and yet critical towards a hands-off doom and gloom mentality of the world's progress.

Cultural reformation is *not* a social gospel, rather it is what the gospel inevitably *does*.
And that reformation must always start first with the Church and her worship of God.

This is Doug at full strength, distilling decades of pastoral and theological experience, and he does a good job at heading off many objections and accusations that others have hurled at his positions. This he does with style, I might add, and there were plenty of laugh of loud moments in reading this.

Agree or disagree, pick it up, and for a moment consider that Jesus' Great Commission might actually be accomplished, world and all, through His redeemed people.

[Joe Hyink · Rating 2 out of 5]

There IS lot of solid material here. For me, though, it could have been half its length or even just a series of blog posts (which maybe it was at one point). It was a bit of a frustrating read for me because Wilson spends and inordinate amount of time explaining what his views are rather than proving them. And the way he goes about it is by interacting with books I have never read or care to read. I was disappointed by the lack of material about Radical Islam specifically, which I was particularly interested in, and the main mentions of it were more illustrative of a larger point. The mere Christendom idea is good and helpful but was explained in a general, undeveloped (sometimes obscure) way.

No huge beefs about what he said in the main, just really disappointed by its lack of research, detail, and precision. It's shoot-from-the-hip style isn't for me... at least in a book.

[Christopher · Rating 5 out of 5]

Grand. I think this works as a fantastic companion book to Wilson's (also grand) Rules for Reformers. In Rules, Pastor Wilson gives principles for engagement. In this book, he gives us what the telos of engagement is, which is to hasten the day when all the kingdoms of the earth will bring their glory into the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:24). Besides this he applies the gospel throughout taking thoughts captive, showing the means of grace, and calling us to the need of the hour, which is courage in the face of stiff opposition- a courage which can only be found in the Lord. What a timely, grace-filled book!

[James Aaron Kirkpatrick · Rating 5 out of 5]

"What did you think?", asks Goodreads, in requesting my review of Empires of Dirt. After reading this book and surveying where we've been during my lifetime and taking note of the trajectory we appear to be on for the rest of my life, I think the thoughts in the book's last paragraph:

"There was a time when this God, unknown to this current generation, was known to our fathers. How do we get back there? We get there through Jesus. Jesus is the only way to the Father. He is also the only way to anything good and true. Jesus is the only way back."

[Christian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bracing. What Doug Wilson does best is inspire and there’s plenty of inspiration here. Oh, sure, there’s lots to debate, too. But let’s start that debate and get it out of the way because there’s plenty of work to be done and we have been called to do it.

[Paul · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is arguably one of the most important Wilson books so far.

Americanism, secularism, libertarianism, two kingdoms theology - will all be overcome by the next Christendom. Long live the King.

[D. Ryan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Couldn’t put it down. What Wilson has to say is at once humbling and inspiring. We have fallen a long way, but it is thrilling to think of what is to come.

[Daniel Markin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wilson gives a quirky, humorous, and sharp critique of Secularism, Radical Islam, and of limp wristed Christianity. I was fired up and motivated towards his call to Christendom after the read.

[J. Rutherford · Rating 2 out of 5]

For the last several years I have spent a lot of time thinking through the question, how do we, as Christians, live within and respond to culture? As I have worked out these issues, I have had Douglas Wilson’s Empires of Dirt recommended to me a couple of times. The freedom of a PhD program, Corona virus lockdown, and the occasion of a new book project on the subject has given me the opportunity to give it a read and review. In sum, I was not persuaded that Wilson’s “Mere Christendom” is a Biblical ideal. For this review, I will offer a brief summary of the book and an evaluation. The evaluation section will be a touch longer than usual, because of my current interest in the topic at hand, but a full address of the issues involved in Wilson’s proposal will have to await the project mentioned above.

1. Summary: Towards a Mere Christendom

Essentially, Wilson wants to offer a postmillennial political alternative to the extremes of Secularism and Radical Islam. Secularism is the false claim to religious neutrality in the public square; in reality, it is an alternate religion that does not proclaim the Lordship of Christ. Radical Islam is the totalitarian claims of Allah and his prophet over the all life, including the state. Wilson’s alternative is a “mere Christendom,” “a network of nations bound together by a formal, public, civic acknowledgement of the lordship of Jesus Christ and the fundamental truth of the Apostle’s Creed” (pg. 7, loc. 101). His focus is America, his home, and the prospects for achieving this goal in this nation. He does not envision a drastic revolution but a slow, patient change brought about by churches and Christians living faithfully and interacting in the political sphere in submission to Christ (195-196, loc. 2473-2488). There is a general progression in his argument but it is not purely linear, involving general meditations on these themes—Secularism, Radical Islam, and Mere Christendom.
Chapter 1 & Chapter 3 take up Secularism and Radical Islam, with a particular focus on Wilson’s American context. Secularism in America is the false religion of American Exceptionalism, or Americanism. Chapters 2, 4, and 5 address alternative Christian proposal to these two extremes. Chapter 2 considers “Christ and Culture,” concluding that anything less than Christ’s total Lordship over the World proclaimed and lived out is unchristian. Chapter 4 considers the Anabaptist approach to culture, an approach that Wilson identifies in many of his Reformed peers. Wilson picks Gregory Boyd as his conversation partner for this chapter. Chapter 5 is the most extensive interaction with an opposing view, arguing against the Reformed Two Kingdoms position expounded especially by the faculty at Westminster Seminary California. Interacting particularly with Jason Stellman’s Dual Citizen and James Hunter’s To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World, Wilson argues that the Two Kingdoms view is inconsistent with historical Reformed theology and is essentially unlivable.
In the remaining chapters, Wilson argues for and explains his “Mere Christendom” proposal. His positive argument is grounded in the present reign of Christ and His Lordship over all things and the postmillennial view that history is inevitably progressing towards the full realization of God’s kingdom on Earth. He places emphasis on the clause “to the nations” in the great commission, namely, the call to teach and baptize all nations, taken to be “the people, the tribe, the whole unit” (pg. 94, Loc. 1204). This includes calling for and seeing kings repent and seeking to declare and establish Christ’s authority in these nations. He correlates this passage with the many Old Testament references to the Christ’s eternal reign over all nations. This is what Wilson attempts, but I am not persuaded by his proposal.

2. Evaluation of a Mere Christendom Proposal

My issues with Wilson’s Empires of Dirt are extensive, but I will restrict myself to commenting on three areas: 1) the nature of Wilson’s rhetoric and argument; 2) his exegesis (and lack thereof) of Biblical texts; 3) and the problems of applying Wilson’s proposal. (Each of these issues will be dealt with more extensively when I get to the project I mentioned above.)

a. The Argument and Rhetoric of Empires

As I mentioned already, I found Wilsons’ argument to be unclear. The book would be a lot stronger if there was a careful map explaining the structure and progression of the book’s argument. In addition to a generally unclear progression, Wilson’s writing style is very aggressive. Elsewhere he has defended the use of satire, but the “serrated edge” of his rhetoric is uncharitable and does not commend itself to those who are unsympathetic to Wilson’s proposal. Possibly as a result of his style, Wilson’s treatment of alternate approaches is neither charitable nor rigorous; often the object of his criticism is a straw man. For example, it is untenable to suggest that only a postmillennial transformationalist approach can justify its belief in the Lordship of Christ. I agree with Wilson that the Anabaptist approach proposed by Boyd and the Reformed Two Kingdoms views are not consistently biblical, yet I can appreciate what there are attempting. At least with regard to the R2K view (this acronym stands for “Radical Two Kingdoms” in Wilson’s parlance), Meredith Kline, Michael Horton, David VanDrunen, et al. legitimately see their view as a holding a robust view of Christ’s Lordship and have some biblical reason for thinking so. In each case, it appears to me that Wilson fails to sympathize with or “enter” the perspective of these thinkers and understand why they say what they are saying. I believe he is right in identifying many weaknesses in the R2K position, but his critique does not come across as careful, considered, or generous. In these ways, Wilson appears to be speaking to the choir. His argument will resonate with those already sympathetic to his position but will not persuade many who are aligned otherwise. Beyond just the manner of argument, the use of Scripture in Empires contributes to this general un-persuasiveness.

b. The Exegesis of Empires

For a book seeking to offer a Biblical proposal over against the unbiblical, even “heretical,” positions of American Secularism and Radical Islam, Empires of Dirt is lacking in thorough Biblical argument. The first interaction with Scripture begins on Page 78 (Loc. 974, almost a third of the way into the book). Here, Wilson interacts with Boyd’s claim that “Jesus three times refers to Satan as the ‘ruler of this world’ (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11).” Boyd understands “ruler” to be a distinctly political word, so Satan is the political ruler of the entire world. Wilson counters that Boyd is picking up on the word and not actually dealing with “what the verses he cites are actually saying” (78, Loc. 974). Is Boyd totally wrong, though? Wilson argues that in context, Satan is “cast out,” “judged,” and has “no claim on” Christ. Does this mitigate Boyd’s point? The difficulty here is that later in the New Testament, Satan is still called the “ruler” and even “god” of this World (2 Cor 4:4; Eph 2:2, 6:4). This is the case, even after Satan has been bound (Mark 3:27, Rev 20:1-3) and cast out of heaven (Luke 10:18).
This is not simply a case of what these verses “are actually saying”; instead, Boyd and Wilson have alternate interpretations of Jesus’s defeat of Satan. Revelation 20 and Mark 3 are clear about what they mean: Satan is bound with reference to deceiving “the nations”; Satan being bound, Christ can plunder his kingdom. Wilson’s reference to the D-day landing in Normandy is actually a fitting analogy for what is going on here: on the Cross, Christ secured victory over Satan and made provision for the Gospel to go forth to all peoples—gentiles and Jews alike (see the context of John 12:31). Jesus’s final victory is guaranteed but not yet realized in this world. The book of Revelation echoes Ephesians 6:4 in describing the entire span of history from now until Christ’s return as one of warfare between Satan—thrown out of heaven but still at the helm of Babylon—and the people of God, persecuted yet enduring for the Sake of Christ. This warfare comes to an end when Christ comes on the clouds, strikes down Babylon, and throws Satan and his followers into the lake of fire (Revelation 19-21). In essence, the problem is not exegesis—though on these verses, I am sympathetic to Boyd—but the overarching paradigm of what Christ’s present reign means and how His heavenly rule will be realized on earth. The few texts to which Wilson turns to make the positive argument for his postmillennial interpretation are unpersuasive.

First, he makes much of the use of “the nations” in the great commission (94-95, Loc. 1199-1215). However, rarely in the New Testament—or the entire Bible—does “nation” refer to anything like a modern social-political nation. In a sense, a “nation” in the Bible describes some sort of unity among diverse peoples: it could be an ethnic unity, a kingdom, a religious group, etc. Often in the New Testament, especially in the plural (“the nations”), it means the non-Jewish world (“gentiles”). So, when Jesus says that Christians are to go out and make disciples of the nations, He does not mean socio-political entities but all people in all their diverse social standings, ethnicities, locations, and current religious affiliations (cf. Matt 6:32, 25:32; Mark 13:10; Luke 12:30; Luke 24:47; etc.). No implications can be drawn from this commission for Wilson’s “Mere Christendom” proposal; the Great Commission is neither an argument against it (unless an argument of conspicuous absence) nor an argument for it.

Second, he argues that the portrait of New Jerusalem in Revelation 21 represents “the Christian Church, being gradually manifested through the course of history,” not “a figure of Heaven, the final eternal state” (80-81, Loc 997-1014). I wholeheartedly agree that Revelation’s “New Jerusalem” is the Church (not the Christian Church however: it is God’s people throughout History). However, it is both the Church AND the final state. That is, in Revelation, the New Jerusalem is not the Church “gradually manifested”; it is the Church perfected. Revelation is notoriously unchronological; however, the vision of New Jerusalem descending from Heaven is clearly indicated as the final state. In the preceding chapters, John’s cyclical description of the history of the Church Age comes to climactic end with the definitive description of Christ’s victory, in Revelation 19-20. After Christ destroys the forces opposing His rule and people, we are told of the resurrection and final judgment (Revelation 20). After Satan is finally defeated (Rev 20:7-10, a recapitulation of Revelation 19), all opposition of God is thrown into the lake of fire, the second death. This is the final state for unbelievers. In addition to this vision (και, and), John sees a vision of “a new heaven and a new earth” (21:1). The old creation has passed away and all rebellion has ceased (21:1); in this context, he sees “the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God.”
All opposition to God is outside of this city, in the lake of fire (e.g. 21:8): it is not being gradually manifested but is climactically revealed at the end of the age. This does indeed have political implications (81, Loc. 1014), but these are not the implications Wilson sees. It is only after Christians have endured persecution that they are raised to new life and enjoy Christ’s glorious and eternal kingdom (21:7); it is at this time that all the nations are struck down and shattered like clay pots (Rev 19:15; 2:26-27). Far from a gradual manifestation of God’s kingdom, it appears to me that Christ’s Kingdom on earth will be inaugurated in climactic revelation of Christ from Heaven for the sake of His people spread throughout and persecuted in the World.
In these ways, I found the general lack of Biblical interaction detrimental to Wilson’s project and what interaction he offered was not sufficient to convince the unconvinced. The last issue I found in Wilson’s project is the general untenability of transformationist proposals, an untenability that Wilson does not address.

c. Applying the Mere Christendom Proposal

Empires of Dirt is thorough in explaining the big picture of its proposal: Christ’s reign will be progressively realized in this world and we should explicitly seek this through faithful Christian living towards a “Mere Christendom.” However, other than limited comments on the limitations of state government, Wilson does not work out what exactly an earthly kingdom constructed within Biblical parameters would look like. However, this is where I think proposal for Christendom in any form have the most difficulties; they work well as an implication of eschatology but are incompatible with a careful exegesis of Scripture.
First, to apply Scripture to the a Mere Christendom, we need to have a Biblical theology of the state and understanding of its relation to the Old and New Testaments (unless we want to follow the Two Kingdoms crew in leaving it to natural revelation). Wilson suggests that the Bible teaches three distinct spheres of government that cannot overlap: Family, Church, and State (192-193, loc 2445-2457). However, in my reading of the New Testament, the Church takes priority over the family in several ways (e.g. Matt 19:29-30). Furthermore, the relationship between these three is not clear: John Frame has argued that the Church and State are both evolutions of the Family, meaning that these are not so distinct (e.g. Doctrine of the Christian Life 595-602).
Second, it is clear in Wilson’s proposal that he does not want to directly apply the Torah to a nation. However, if theocracy is the goal, it is hard to fathom how it could not be built on God’s governmental revelation par excellence. If God’s earthly kingdom permitted divorce, why would a new earthly kingdom make it illegal (221, Loc 2787)? If God’s first kingdom penalized homosexuality, adultery, and fornication with death (Lev 18:7-23; 20:10-21), how could the new earthly kingdom not do so? The same issue applies for a child cursing their parents (Lev 20:6-9). If God’s first kingdom penalized unbelief with death, how could is second kingdom not do so (Lev 24:10-16; etc.)? Also, why would the physical symbols of God’s distinctly Holy people (food laws, laws of dress) not apply to a new physically distinct people?
I have been working on several essays on such difficulties that emerge in the context of thinking through the application of the Bible to a "Christendom." It is because of these paradoxes—along with the general tenor of the New Testament and the book of Revelation—that I find a proposal for a new Christendom untenable. On the whole, Wilson's books is unpersuasive.

[Philip Brown · Rating 3 out of 5]

I find myself in this strange position with old Doug: almost everyone I know who is aware of him falls into one of two groups: (1) Doug is the worst, and (2) Doug's works should be added to the canon (a joke). I have friends that would not like each other based on their opinions of the guy. I propose a third way: (3) Doug says a lot of true and helpful things, but I disagree with his overall framework. And from afar he seems to be at least a funny and quite likeable gent. This dynamic is at play in how I found this book:

I agreed with maybe 60% of it. He said a lot of things I agreed with for sure, but the devil is in the details, and when he puts together his system, I have critiques. I hold to 2K theology, though apparently a version of it that is far closer to Wilson than what he critiques in the chapter around that topic (I did notice that while he mentions VanDrunen's name, he does not interact with any of his written works).

I agree with him that an ideal society will acknowledge the true God and his ways to some degree, and that faithful Christian discipleship should result in a culture pushing in that direction. However, it seems to me that the Noahic covenant requires a bare minimum of civil governments to work this out. To be very practical, I could see myself at the very least voting for and being happy with an atheist that understands reality sufficiently to enact good, freedom loving policy, that leads to just societies where families and business can thrive (though I would point out to him that there is a mind behind this reality he is correctly interpreting). I would feel the same about a religious Jew, an agnostic, or even a Mormon. Once that were in place, I'd be basically happy on a political level . Of course, on another level, I'd want him/her to be saved, but in terms of common kingdom governmental duties, I think they would be doing all that God requires in this realm (though definitely not in every realm). It seems that Wilson, has to do this kind of thing too, as he is advocating for a mere Christendom, meaning that he wouldn't want the ideal state affirming anything beyond the Apostle's creed (or was it the Nicene?). So Wilson agrees that it is necessary to draw the line of specificity somewhere. So, I would ask him, by what standard are those the doctrines that this Christendom needs to affirm? Why not more? Why not less? Why stop exactly here? I agree with Wilson that rejecting transcendence from the public square means that societies will be unable to ground any truth claims, and that societies need to agree on some objective realities to function, and that scientism and induction alone are unable to provide this (this was my main criticism of Pluckrose and Lindsay's Cynical Theories ). I disagree, however, with the idea that the line needs to be drawn such that political leaders should be required by us to explicitly acknowledge the Lordship of Jesus Christ in order to hold public office, though of course, it would be good (mainly for them) if they did bow before the King (and affirm Calvinism, inerrancy, trinitarianism, complementarianism, and credobaptism while they're at it). I'm happy for the line to be drawn further back than Wilson.

I also think secularism is a tricky word, and because it has a number of different implications, it can be used as a bait and switch a little, which can mean that people Wilson is attempting to critique might find themselves frustrated. To be fair, at different points throughout the book, he did do a good job in showing a number of different definitions (ie. temporal as opposed to in eternity, or some kind of understanding that all things though connected to God are divided into sacred and secular, or an explicit rejection of God in the public realm, or even a desire to try create a neutral space where we can interact with each other in society without having to affirm each other's positions on everything, or others). James K.A. Smith unpacks some of these and more in his book How Not to Be Secular which I think are worth exploring, just to make sure we don't impute to others what they're not really meaning.

I would also point out that this book will be less than convincing to anyone who is not already thoroughly convinced of postmillennial eschatology. If you are, then God bless you. Others of us are not, and so certain readings of texts were thrown out there boldly that I would be willing to wage a bet on in saying that the vast majority of evangelical commentators and historical exegetes would differ with (Revelation 19 as Christ's message expanding throughout the world? Revelation 21-22 describing the present age? etc. etc.).

In saying that, this book gave a lot accurate criticisms of what is going on ideologically right now, and exposes the hypocrisy of God-hating ideologues nicely. You've also got to say, that for whatever you may or may not think about Wilson, the man can write. No boring prose here: the book is an experience.

[Mark Evans · Rating 5 out of 5]

Best book I have read on issues of Church and state, “Christ and culture” and so on...

“The Church is formal worship, the cultus. The Kingdom is the culture that surrounds the Church, having grown out of it. The reformational work of reclaiming education or the fine arts is Kingdom work, done by Christians, to be distinguished from the formal work of the Church, done by ministers, elders, deacons, and congregants. The “task” of the Church is Word and sacrament, period. Other tasks taken up by the Church should be auxiliary works, subordinate to those central tasks, and directly related to them (e.g., building a facility in which to preach the Word and administer the sacraments, and trying diligently to keep that building from looking like your local Costco warehouse). Rightly established, the Church equips the saints for works of service, and these works include all the things that men and women are lawfully called to do—merchandizing and mining, poetry and police work, and education and eggplant farming. The Church’s task is to equip and inspire—not to supplant. When this understanding gets gummed up, then an ecclesiocentric vision goes bad, and metastasizes into one where the Church becomes the only real thing that matters. Rich nobles start leaving all their holdings to monasteries so that monks with their heads bobbing might pray for the soul of Sir Herbert Leslie Throckmorton for the next five hundred years. That’s not good. The nucleus is not the cell, and the Church is not the Kingdom.”

“So I don’t want the Church to be everything, and I don’t want the reformation of the Church to be the only item on the agenda—just the first and most important item on the agenda. When that reformation begins to take shape and numerous Christians are worshiping in the way Christians ought to be worshiping, those Christians—who happen to be politicians, auto mechanics, teachers, film directors, news anchors, poets, and cafeteria workers—will begin to live out the kind of Christian life that they learned about the previous Sunday. That will effect the transformation of society, but not by turning that society into a giant worship service.”

— Empires of Dirt: Secularism, Radical Islam, and the Mere Christendom Alternative by Douglas Wilson
http://a.co/gNS4toD

[Eric · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think I should review it again, as it's been awhile, but the essence I got from it was that all the empires of man are doomed to fall and Christ's rule will in time, be fully and completely manifested in earth as well as heaven.

He does argue that since Jesus is Lord of all, then all magistrates and governments have a duty to acknowledge the same and seek to establish and enforce laws according to God's Word. The question arises: 'how should this be done?' Wilson, taking the Post-Mill stance expects this to eventually develop as more are converted over the centuries.

I am not Post-Mill but I do appreciate the confidence of the power of the gospel to do more than we think and their emphasis on some great promises we often neglect.

In history, with rare exceptions, is either government persecuting the church (and anybody else they see as a threat) or church and state are wedded to varying degrees which often results in the church leadership succumbing to the lure of being "in" with the powerful and reputable and compromise their witness and even endorse ungodly governmental policies. I don't care whether it is left or right, the corruption is the same.

In America's case, the general Christian 'ethos' led to a national civic religion which said many good things, but ended up diluting teaching and witness to the point of American = Christian-lite with no actual need for repentance and faith.

[Caleb Smith · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is my first Doug Wilson book. I was kind of familiar with him before, though not greatly, and, given what I did know, I went in a bit unsure. The book both confirmed and bypassed much of this concern, and that will make sense in the rest of the review.

Wilson's thesis is pretty simple. Calling it "mere Christendom," he argues that the nations of the world, his own US of A included, ought to formally and publicly recognize the Lordship of Christ over their governments. He does not It is time to go back to this because secularism is showing itself to be entering catastrophic failure, and the fastest growing principled alternative to a secular state, namely a radical Islamic one, would be a really bad idea. As far as I can tell, he's definitely right about these alternatives.

Much of the book is taken up with discussions of why and how secularism is failing us, and the most important part (in my opinion) of that discussion revolves around how secularism is a sham. The secular state claims religious neutrality, which in the end just means the state can do what it wants and assume that all religions are false, simply stubborn obstacles to making good policies and laws. So the secular state can substitute Christian ethics and teleology with its own set of ethics and teleology, which of course means that if the Christian ones are true (which of course Wilson and I believe), there will be terrible consequences.

But beyond the failures of secularism in fact, Wilson argues against it in principle for Christians. If Jesus is in fact Lord, then this should be acknowledged everywhere. "All authority in heaven and earth" does not mean that in one (rather large) sphere of human life, the state, Jesus has no authority and must only go by He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. If Christians can make their way into public office, they ought to be Christians in those offices. If a nation becomes full of Christians, then there is no legitimate reason why the nation qua nation should be non-christian. If Jesus is Lord, then He is Lord of even political rulers, and they have to become disciples, being baptized and taught in all His commandments. There is no justification for Christians, when they find themselves in political control, to abdicate either their Christianity or their office.

On this point, Wilson spends a great deal of time arguing against the neo-Anabaptist and "Reformed two kingdoms" theologies currently in vogue which put the Church as ever antithetical to or at least strictly divided from any of the kingdoms of the world. The kingdoms of this world have already become the kingdom of our God, and everyone ought to act like it. Wilson does, in my opinion, a pretty successful job showing how these positions don't really make sense, and this may be the most convincing part of the book. You could, by reading this, find yourself compelled to adopt his "mere Christendom" position just because you can't find the major alternatives credible. He summarizes his point here in a pretty simple way (Oversimplified? Maybe, but perhaps just cutting through sophistry with clarity):

Here are the options:

1. Jesus doesn't care whether or not nations are explicitly Christian.
2. Jesus is opposed to nations being explicitly Christian.
3. Jesus wants nations to be explicitly Christian.

And here should be our responses to these possibilities:

1. Well, if Jesus doesn't care, that means we have the right to care. So let's make this a Christian nation, shall we?
2. Let's have a Bible study and find out why "disciple the nations" really means "don't disciple the nations, whatever you do."
3. Yes, Lord.

Oof, that's sharp. Even if you don't think that things are really that simple, it makes you think. But this does bring us to the problems with this book. Wilson is a lively fellow, quick witted and very sarcastic. This shows up a lot in the book, and while most of the time it is funny, it also connects with perhaps a bit of arrogance to make certain contentious points of argument actually oversimplified or just glossed over with a quip. This is perhaps most egregious in the way he pretty much just asserts without argument how we need to declare war on Darwinism and resist the lures of theistic evolution. Maybe he's right, but I would have preferred to see him make this case rather than pass over it. He also has a tendency to weaken his overall argument by carelessly injecting contentious details about his more general political views which are very much unnecessary to his mere Christendom proposal. Does he really need to make enemies of possible allies by going off on tangents about welfare or the maximum non-idolatrous tax rate? Even if he's right, I don't think the inclusion of such bits help with the whole "mere" part of mere Christendom.

All that said, I think Wilson is basically right about the necessity of a mere Christendom. He did a good job not only explaining why it's a good idea in principle, but also why it doesn't have to be the scary or dangerous thing many take it to be. Indeed, with postmillennial optimism, he can pretty much guarantee that a new Christendom would be better than the last.

His postmillennialism, by the way, plays a large role in his thought here. While I think his proposal would still work without it, it definitely has a lot to do with this thinking on the matter. He repeats a few times that eschatology leads all the rest of this. So if you don't find postmillennialism plausible, your chances of agreeing with Wilson on his wider thought are quite reduced. But that just means you need to get your eschatology straight. :)

[Andrew Fendrich · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was my first look at Doug Wilson’s writing. Not knowing much about the guy except that he’s held some... interesting... beliefs over the years, I’ve got to say: this book was fantastic. It’s a blend of presuppositional apologetics and theonomy, while examining cultural trends in our post-postmodern American society. While I wouldn’t strictly call myself a “theonomist,” I do agree with Wilson’s assessment that all Christians are theonomists; it’s just about the “how.” And his overarching point that only a biblical understanding of truth will stand the tests of cultural morality is well-met. Whatever your opinion of Wilson, I highly recommend this one.

[Alex Kearney · Rating 4 out of 5]

“All societies are theocratic, and the only thing that distinguishes them is which God they serve”

I feel a bit embarrassed. Before opening this book up, I thought the idea of a formal government edict recognizing Jesus as Lord, establishing Christianity as its national religion, was a bad idea.

Wilson is right. I have been so effectively catechized by secularism that I didn’t really want Jesus to be Lord of EVERYTHING, as He already is.

[David Bruyn · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have no quibble with Wilson's rejection of a 'secular', neutral political order. I don't doubt that the lordship of Jesus needs to be preached to all and to all levels of power. And the weight of history is on his side, as far as a mere Christendom goes. I suppose the rub comes in defining how non-believers have to function in such an order, and how the magistrate relates to churches he disagrees with.

[Gary · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was excellent. Wilson has thought (and fought) long on this issue (these issues). He presents not only a coherent vision of a new Christendom, but inspires as he does so. He also really shows the incoherence of the R2K alternative.

I love the natural law has a place in his vision, which I think would be vital to the needed wisdom Christians would need if their influence grew more.

Liked it a whole lot.

[Jesse Beauford · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very insightful as usual for Wilson, although I would have to disagree with him on allowing people of different religions or ideologies that are at their core all about destroying Christianity to own property or have citizenship in our country.
That being said, I’m not advocating persecution of them.

[Levi Friesen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Doug Wilson is much better in long-form than in sound bites in generally - Holds true in this book and its challenging of the assumption of secular "neutrality" and its call for Christian consistency.

[Emma R. Pilcher · Rating 4 out of 5]

Practical and helpful continuation of Wilson’s thesis in Mere Christendom. If you don’t desire to brave through the density of Kuyper, this would be helpful for understanding the political implications of Kuyperian and R2K thought, and the ultimate inconsistency of R2K-ism.