(5) Is Muehlenberg a theocrat?

Bill Muehlenberg denies that he is a theocrat, but I disagree. In national terms, a theocrat claims that a god is a particular country’s ultimate ruler and that the nation should be operating according to that god’s laws. In the longer run, Muehlenberg would like to see Christ returning to earth and directly ruling the entire planet. In the short term, he wants to accelerate the process by which this situation might occur by ‘Christianising’ the nation. I’ll begin by drawing rather extensively on an article I wrote in 2003 entitled ‘Australia’s Theocratic Right‘.

The modern ‘Christian’ theocratic approach to politics is often termed ‘dominion theology’ and it has a wide range of guises and levels of intensity. Adherents of dominion theology encourage Christian political activism leading to sweeping social change rather than mere adjustments to the social system. In practice, these proposed changes tend to be of an authoritarian kind.

In its extreme form, dominion theology is called ‘Christian Reconstructionism’, a contemporary Christian movement aimed at reorganising society in accordance with Biblical guidelines, especially those laid down in the first five books of the Old Testament. This would include the death penalty by stoning, burning etc. for ‘crimes’ such as abortion, homosexuality and, in the case of women, ‘unchastity before marriage’.

While I do not assert that Muehlenberg is an outright Reconstructionist, it is difficult if not impossible for individuals and groups now generally regarded as forming Australia’s ‘Christian right’ to distance themselves from the broader concept of dominion theology. Their policies on issues such as abortion, bioethics, censorship, homosexual rights etc. will inevitably become ‘operationally dominionist’. In other words, even if they deny that they subscribe to the teachings of Rousas Rushdoony, Gary North, Francis Schaeffer or some other dominionist ideologue, they cannot achieve their long-term goals in the absence of a ‘Christian’ (i.e. religious authoritarian) government. And to that extent Muehlenberg and similar individuals and groups must act according to the dictates of dominion theology.

I should acknowledge at this point that Muehlenberg sometimes claims to hold ‘democracy’ in high regard (see, for example, ‘Faith and politics‘, 20 Oct. 2006), but most of these assertions are open to interpretation e.g. ‘The blessing of democracy allows open debate and the possibility of reform’ ( ‘Abbott on Islam‘, , 18 Sept. 2006). Does Muehlenberg value democracy as desirable in itself or merely as an instrument to facilitate the achievement of his political objectives? Muehlenberg believes that ‘[r]eal freedom is not the ability to do whatever we want, but to do what is right’ (’Pornography: is it a victimless crime?’, The Australian Family, Nov. 2005, 15). The latter part of this viewpoint sits uncomfortably with democratic ideals. In 2003, I listed a number of characteristics by which we could recognise adherents of theocratic ideologies like dominionism. Some of these descriptors were as follows:

• regular use of terms like ‘biblical worldview’, ‘cultural warfare’, ’spiritual warfare’, ‘ Christian nation’, ‘Christian heritage’, Christians as ’salt and light’ etc.;
• an unshakable conviction that they and people like them are the sole custodians of ‘the truth’;
• near-obsessive, condemnatory interest in sex-related social issues such as homosexual rights, pornography, abortion, sex education and feminism;
• quoting authors such as Abraham Kuyper, Francis Schaeffer, John Whitehead and (Reconstructionist) Greg Bahnsen;
• showing relatively little interest in ’social gospel’ issues such as poverty, unemployment, the plight of the underprivileged etc.;
• attacking ‘pluralism’ and ‘tolerance’ and defending ‘discrimination’;
• an expressive style involving anger, confrontation and extensive use of war imagery;
• strong promotion of Christian schools and home-schooling;
• downplaying denominational differences, even between evangelicals and Catholics, in order to advance political causes;
• characterising opponents as demonic.

To this list I would now add:

• a commitment to creationism.

Briefly, Muehlenberg falls into all of these categories: for example, he has approvingly quoted from all of the dominionist authors listed above, and has appeared on platforms with others such as David Noebel. Given Muehlenberg’s prominent position in Australia’s Christian right, I’ll be looking at these aspects of his thinking and practice in more detail over a period of time, but here I will focus on the critical area of theology.

The bottom line in all of this is what is our basis of authority? Is it God’s unchanging word, or is it fashionable social trends? Is God’s revelation the standard by which we judge all moral/social questions, or do we judge them by the changing theories of men? (’Homosexuality and Church Leadership’, 29 Aug. 2003)

Many evangelicals regard ‘the bottom line’ in roughly this way, but Muehlenberg’s mode of expression here is very typical of a specifically creationist standpoint. Young Earth Creationists (YECs), who teach a literal reading of the Genesis creation story, often explain their point of departure exactly as Muehlenberg does here.

So is he a YEC, believing that the earth and man were created in approximately their present form no more than about 6,000 years ago? Well, that’s hard to say. He’s clearly a creationist of some sort:

[Three anti-evolution authors, Michael Denton, Phillip Johnson and Michael Behe] have collectively undermined many of the faulty towers of Darwinism. A few more well-aimed hits and the whole edifice could collapse. Darwinism has been one of the great intellectual superstitions of modern times. (’Darwinism Under Fire’, Salt Shakers Newsletter [SSN], May 1998, 8)

Muehlenberg seems to deny the possibility of macro-evolution (i.e. denies that distinct species such as apes and humans could have shared a common ancestor) and appears to dismiss evolution as anti-Christian:

Darwinistic evolution is a competing worldview to the Biblical Christian worldview. One may hold to one or the other, but they cannot be held to simultaneously. (ibid., 7)

This is a characteristic YEC position, and Muehlenberg has many YEC friends, but as in other areas of his theology he is inconsistent. For example, he evidently accepts that the earth is much older than 6,000 years. Also, he is regarded as theologically unsound by Jonathan Sarfati of Creation Ministries International (Sarfati, letter in New Life, 10 Mar. 2005).

Regarding the extremist doctrine of Reconstructionism, Muehlenberg is also rather hard to assess. On the one hand, he approvingly quotes Reconstructionist authors like Greg Bahnsen (’Homosexuality and the Bible’, SSN, Oct. 1995, passim), appears on platforms with people who seem comfortable with Reconstructionist ideas, and sometimes looks like he’s writing for a Reconstructionist handbook:

Almost all of the good achieved in the Western world has come about because of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Now is not the time to abandon that tradition, but to reclaim it, and reclaim it more forcefully than ever. (’What are we fighting for?’, News Weekly, 17 Dec. 2005, 13)

We should also not forget that Muehlenberg was trained by Youth with A Mission (YWAM), a dominionist organisation with Reconstructionist tendencies (Brian’s Blog, 5 Oct. 2006). He is very attuned to Reconstructionist ways of thinking, favouring the practice of shunning openly homosexual church members; reintroducing ’stigma and shame’ for social miscreants such as single mothers, (review of James Q. Wilson The Marriage Problem, 14 Mar. 2006); and recommending the physical punishment of children with pieces of wooden dowel:

… [T]here is wisdom in using an object, e.g. a wooden dowel … In the same way, animal trainers recommend using an object instead of the hand. (Letter in Melbourne Herald Sun, 19 Oct. 1998, reprinted in SSN, Nov. 1998, 11)

Sexual ‘misbehaviour’ of any kind should be countered by government action:

While it is not yet illegal to smoke …, governments have done much to deter the behaviour, to reduce it, to discourage it … [W]hy can’t governments try this with other behaviours? … Why not [with] promiscuous sex of any kind? ( ‘An Assessment of the EA Paper on Homosexuality‘, 13 Jul. 2006)

In a bravura display of dominionist authoritarianism, Muehlenberg was one of the few people supporting the right of parents to use a kit that scientifically tests teenagers’ underwear in order to detect the presence of semen:

… [T]here might be a few parents that need it but they would have to be pretty careful. (Daniel Dasey ‘Sex test checks on children’, Melbourne Age, 5 Aug. 2003)

However, Muehlenberg sometimes takes care to distinguish his views from ‘those in the … dominion/Christian Reconstruction camp‘ (see, for example, ‘An Assessment of the EA Paper on Homosexuality‘, 13 Jul. 2006). But the preceding paragraphs indicate that any difference between his own theology and dominionism must be paper-thin, if indeed it exists at all.

To conclude this brief overview of Muehlenberg’s personal theology, some of his writing raises certain questions about his ‘Christian right’ orthodoxy. Astonishingly (for such an anti-feminist), he seems happy to concede that the Bible sometimes refers to God as a mother, although he is wise enough not to elaborate (Five Book Reviews [Book 5], 23 May 2005); and that we are only ‘primarily‘ free moral agents, which opens the door to speculations about his views on Calvinism etc. (’Affirming Responsibility in an Age of Irresponsibility’, SSN, Apr. 1999, 9)

More seriously, having criticised theological liberals for ‘picking and choosing’ from the Bible, he does a pretty good job of it himself. ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ doesn’t get much of a run in Bill Muehlenberg’s theology. He regards ‘God is love’ as ‘a half-truth’:

The same Christ who drew children into His arms will also come back with a sword to judge the earth, as the Book of Revelation makes clear. (’Homosexuality and Scripture: Part 3′, New Life, 22 Jan. 2004, 5)

As for the Golden Rule (’Do unto others …’), as far as homosexuals and other targets of Muehlenberg’s wrath are concerned:

Now this is a fairly broad statement, and may not be of so much use in determining how Christians and the state deal with homosexuality. As such, its inclusion does not help too much with the discussion at hand. ( ‘An Assessment of the EA Paper on Homosexuality‘, 13 Jul. 2006)

So a plain statement of what most people take to be the principal ethical tenet of Christianity ‘may not be of so much use’ and ‘does not help too much’!

So is Muehlenberg a theocrat or not? Well, you make up your own mind, but if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck …

Filed in: Christian Right, People, Theocracy