We Will Not Be Gaslit - PREVIEW

[NOTE: This is a free preview of a Patreon-exclusive series of releases that began a few weeks ago. We believe really strongly in this work, and we know that unless people see and understand what's going on, nothing will change. But we also have to eat, and our community has serious needs. So if you read this, and you want to come along on this journey, please join us. We need support. If you're able, you can join the Patreon, or make a gift over at the GoFundMe. Thank you for believing in our tiny effort to make safety for folks who have never really known it.]

Can I share a weird secret with you?

It’s weird, because it’s not really a secret. It’s been an openly available fact for decades. Heck, there have been more than a few articles and books written about it. Some people even study it professionally.

But when I say this, it’s going to sound kind of nuts to you. You’re going to say, “But they say the exact opposite!” You’ll ask yourself, “Then why are they going to all this trouble?” You’ll say, “Why isn’t the media talking more about this?”

Those are good questions. You’ll see why.

You ready for the weird secret? It’s this:

MAGA’s supporters are animated by a set of theologies created by a guy who hated America. And he made a plan to create a movement like MAGA for the very purpose of destroying America, then rebuilding it in his own likeness.

More than sixty years ago, this man slowly gathered a cabal of Reformed evangelicals, and together, they came up with a plan to use America’s democratic process to eliminate its Constitution and replace it with their interpretation of Old Testament Law.

Now you understand: it wasn't a secret, and it didn’t need to be. Everyone thought they were crazy.

But just recently, they succeeded in one of their major goals. They now have a member of their cult in charge of giving orders to our nation's military-industrial complex, and many many more in statehouses and governor's seats across the nation.

They are very close to succeeding in another that the administration has more than teased of late: putting an end to Presidential term limits.

If this continues, they’ll achieve the ultimate goal, ending the US Constitution’s role as the law of the land.

For some reason, even though they’ve been quite open about this, even though they have continued to relentlessly gain power and influence nationally, no one’s talking enough about them, their plan, or the fact that they are well on their way to succeeding in their goal. They want to see the death of 'blasphemous' America and the birth of a new “holy” nation, made in their own image and utterly devoted to their god. No one is asking - at least, not in focused detail - how they got here, who they are, or what they believe.

These people are called theonomists, or sometimes, Christian Reconstructionists.

---

Theonomy – literally “God’s law” – is a system of ideas that revolve around the belief that biblical law (especially Old Testament law) and its interpreters should directly govern world society. Theonomy is the theological system that animates the activity of these men (but they aren’t all men, as we’ll see) and drives them to their political goals. There are lots of different kinds of theonomists, but the ones we’re talking about generally fit under a banner called Christian Reconstructionism.

Christian Reconstructionism is a movement built on the doctrines that make up theonomy. This is where the ideas of theonomy get applied: Reconstructionists are envisioning a nation “reconstructed” under their interpretation of God’s law. (No, the irony of our community's name is not lost on us. And the contrast is not intentional.)

Though once a fringe ideology, its ideas have quietly influenced segments of the religious right and are more publicly resurfacing today under the banner of Christian Nationalism.

The Christian Nationalist project, of course, animated a wide swathe of the American Right, with public awareness arguably being said to develop around 2016 with Trump’s first run at Presidential office. Before that point, it had mostly been a fringe notion, with the idea of vaguely Protestant neo-Nazi skinheads seeming like a vague threat from the past - a clinging tailend of some folks who just couldn’t let go.

But then, we had the Charlottesville rallies. We had the “Unite the Right” thing. The January 6th riots happened. And at all of those events, folks started to notice something a little too conspicuous.

Way too many of those folks were carrying crosses and Bibles. And way too many of them were calling themselves Christians.

So the public was most certainly more aware of the concept of Christian nationalism by 2022, when out of Moscow, ID came a little book called The Case for Christian Nationalism. It had one very clear premise: American Christians should do anything necessary - including armed revolution - to establish a nation in which non-Christians, heretics, and blasphemers are put to death.

The slug didn’t say that, of course. It read, in part, “Christian nationalism is the idea that people in the same place and culture should live together and seek one another’s good.”

But between the covers, the author indicated that America is in need of “​​theocratic Caesarism.” He says that we are in need of a king who can “resolve doctrinal conflicts,” and a ruling religious council like the Sanhedrin. “Our time calls for a man who can wield formal civil power to great effect and shape the public imagination by means of charisma, gravitas, and personality,” the author declares, literally stating the exact opposite of the Declaration of Independence.

He further goes on to complain, “The governing virtues of America are [...] feminine virtues, such as empathy, fairness, and equality.” He refers to opponents of this Christian nationalist project as “enemies of the human race.”

This did not sound like the kind of political philosophy the average evangelical was used to hearing.

But there it was, on the scene in 2022, absolutely rattling the rafters of the American church, evangelical or not. “How did we get here?” some Christians were gasping, hands on head. “How do we have an actual blood-and-soil nationalist writing books for a Christian publishing house?”

How, indeed.

This little book came as such a surprise to so many average churchgoers because here was a book that contained ideas that American evangelicals, broadly speaking, had been trained to react to as evil: here’s a man saying that to be saved, America needs that “theocratic Caesar.” Here’s a man saying that non-Christians should be executed for not being Christians. Here’s a man saying that people who have beliefs that differ from the government should be imprisoned. These are all bad, yes?

And yet evangelicalism’s leaders collectively shrugged. Why?

Because this idea and its implications and adherents were a known quantity to them. This idea hadn’t walked up to the camp in the night and crossed the picket line. It woke up inside the command tent one morning and walked out into the general camp chewing on an apple and acting like it belonged.

Many of the ‘enlisted’ among evangelicals were confused. “What’s this idea doing here?” they asked. “Isn’t this opposed to the gospel we’re all out here fighting for?”

What they didn’t know was that that idea was walking around the camp, this “theocratic Caesar” idea, this “death to heretics” idea, was acting like it belonged because it had been invited to be there.

The average evangelical didn’t know what to make of Christian nationalism when they first really became aware of it. But their leaders weren’t fussed. Because they’d been friends with these people - like, sharing money, writing books together, going on vacations, starting orgs together friends.

The evangelical political project had been handed over to the Christian nationalists a long time previously. And in 2024, the Christian nationalists gave evangelicals the White House in the form of Donald Trump.

---

Perhaps the ultimate contemporary advocate of this brand of theonomy (albeit often at arm’s length from the Reconstructionist label) is Doug Wilson. Wilson is a pastor in Idaho who talks about these ideas using the label “mere Christendom,” or sometimes, “general equity theonomy.”

“Mere Christendom” is Wilson’s shorthand for the theonomic future: America, but running on Reformed (not ‘merely’ Christian) governance and jurisprudence. He has built a religious empire in his church’s town of Moscow, Idaho, around a publishing house (Canon Press) that produces curricula for Christian and private schools as well as a myriad of books marketing to churches and believers generally, a denomination (CREC), a seminary (Greyfriars), a media company (with the cheekily named subscription service ‘Canon+’), and much more.

Wilson teaches things like, “Never apologize to your wife unless God thinks your wrong her.” (And in Wilson’s theology, he provides enough loopholes to ensure that God never thinks you wronged her.)

Wilson argues, “It is not possible to prevail in conflict without deception.” And as we’ll see, he’s practiced what he preaches.

He once wrote, “The black family was never stronger than it had been under slavery.” A pamphlet of his, “Southern Slavery As it Was” is rightly notorious for its horrifying revisionist history of American chattel slavery, and I refuse to give it any more airtime here. You can Google it.

From a theological standpoint, Wilson is plain about the fact that he does not believe that salvation comes through grace alone through faith alone. No, the believer must persist in obedience and faith. He teaches that church membership and participation in the ordinances effectively convey salvation in Jesus. And he teaches that to leave his church and his doctrines is to be ‘outside’ Christianity.

And this is important to note: Wilson’s vision is not for Christianity generally to be in charge. Wilson’s vision is for his version of Christianity to be in charge. (This issue - who gets to interpret the Law? - will become a major sticking point later.)

Wilson is both heavily influenced by theonomic and postmillennial ideas, and he has a penchant for Lost Cause narrative and revisionist Civil War history, in part thanks to his association with a Southern pastor named Steve Wilkins (who will come in more later). He loves little more than challenging the values of religious pluralism and democracy, and he often elects to do so by applying Old Testament narratives to modern American social policy. I’ll quote him at some length from a 2021 blog post:

“When Elijah executed the priests of Baal…what he did was holy, righteous, and good… And when [a man] blasphemed the name of the Lord [...] his execution was holy, righteous, and good. There was nothing wrong with any of that. [...] Why is that not to be the law for any future Christian republic…? What will we do with the sons of Shelomith then?”​

[The "sons of Shelomith" are blasphemers - those who deny that Wilson's idea of god is God. See how that works?]

To be clear, he means we should stone them. And he is serious.

In his book, Mere Christendom, Wilson argues for nations to explicitly confess "Christ’s lordship." How a government can sufficiently confess Christ as Lord is beyond me, but we’ll leave that to our betters. Regardless, one is left to wonder how a government that “explicitly [confesses] Christ’s lordship” might govern. But we aren’t left without a few things to go on.

His denomination (the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches) pointedly and consistently opposes “religious pluralism” and embraces theonomy on the premise that Jesus, as “Lord of all,” wants Christians to legally and socially impose Biblical laws, penalties, and systems on modern society, apart from the beliefs and convictions of the members of that society.

Wilson himself loves to tinkeringly speculate about how things might work in theonomy’s future wishlist: things like stoning disobedient children, spanking wives, and rehabilitating pedophiles [a thing he infamously tried by marrying said pedophile to a single mother with small children. Yes, he knew in advance; it was the basis of the idea].

His blog (aptly named ‘Blog & MaBlog’ in a biblical references to two entities that scripture describes as fatal and relentless enemies of God’s people) is arduous, stretching the definition of ‘purple prose’ into nearly translucent violet. But every single bit of it is aimed at mapping his meandering, theocratic musings. Not a word is spent unconsidered.

He also dabbles in writing fiction featuring luridly-described sex robots, all while using terms for the female body - both in print and outside of it - that I’d generally associate more freely with porn-addicted teenage boys. He objects, "I'm trying to make a point!" but one asks why the point need include quite so much satisfaction with objectifying language. He describes “quivering bosoms” and “plump lips” with a little too much alacrity and frequency to remain at ease about him. These are not new observations, and yet here we are.

As a matter of fact, the CREC in general has an odd cant to it in terms of traditionally Christian conduct (at least in America) that is important to know: the CREC is, in fact, enthusiastically in favor of alcohol and smoking, especially in social context. Our defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, in a member of the CREC. He has a long and well-documented history of alcohol abuse and domestic violence, and the national media/ordinary American have noticed this with some confusion. Regardless of how one personally feels about drinking and smoking, we can appreciate the broader culture's confusion.

Isn’t this supposed to be a Christian politician? they ask. Christian beliefs mean they have to oppose this guy, surely! Drinking, smoking, wife beating? Isn’t he everything those fundamentalist evangelicals hate?

Fundamentalist thinking doesn’t always look like white Keds and denim skirts.

By and large, the Reformed theonomists (their charismatic brethren are a little different, as we’ll see) love to talk about sex and their enjoyment of it. In their blogosphere and among their influencers, you’ll see paragraphs in praise of the draw of a pipe, or posts waxing eloquent about whiskey in the glass, and they all tend to end with self-impressed remarks about “freedom in Christ” and how those fundies over there in "normie" evangelicalism just don’t get it.

One gets the sense that the CREC, too, is showing less-than-subtle contempt for their more ‘traditional’ evangelical allies, much as Rushdoony did. The poor rubes, as they see most other evangelicals, just aren’t enlightened enough to understand that one can have the “strict Old Testament Law for thee” cake while simultaneously eating “but lightly applied Old Testament Law for me” if one just adopts the differing strictures of their brand of Reformed theology.

And in Wilson’s mind, all of this - from beginning to Pete Hegseth’s sadly inevitable, sordid end - is all in keeping with “explicitly [confessing] Christ’s lordship.”

Please realize that Wilson, by his own long account, does not consider most of his evangelical counterparts to be sufficiently “Christian” for the task of governance. This is on the basis of the fact that most evangelicals do not share his most extreme views, of course. So the contempt isn’t just a subtle; it’s an intentional signal and an emergent property of a theology that really, truly, genuinely believes itself to have ‘solved’ Christianity as if it were chess.

Theonomists all have their personalities and aesthetics, but this Christian Reconstructionism variety - the dominant one on the Reformed wing of evangelicalism - has complete and total answers for how to build the perfect society. Wilson’s group has the will to realize this vision politically, and has already shown the moral turpitude to overlook whatever is necessary to inflict on others to accomplish it.

The average evangelical doesn’t understand this. And they have no idea what Wilson and his ilk would do to them and their families if they ever did get a sniff of power.

Until now.

As we’ve said, Pete Hegseth is now the head of the United States Department of Defense. He wrote a book called “American Crusade,” in which he talks about his plans for a crusade to purify America of “filthy Leftists” and “Islamists.” In it, he says, “Our American Crusade is not about literal swords, and our fight is not with guns. Yet.”

And lest you think, “Well, I’m no leftist or Islamist; they’re not going to target me,” remember that just ten years ago, one of the biggest names in conservatism was a man named John McCain. Today, the man in charge of his party said that he was a “****ing loser,” a fake war hero, and mocked him for the injuries he sustained as a POW. After McCain’s 2018 funeral, Trump remarked that “I gave him the kind of funeral that he wanted, which as president I had to approve. I don't care about this. I didn't get [a] ‘thank you.’”

You are not “conservative” enough to be safe from a theonomist. No one is. Not even Donald Trump will be, in the end.

Evangelicals largely do not realize this. If something doesn’t change, however, one day they will.

---

Religion scholar Julie Ingersoll has written extensively on this subject. She notes that groups like Wilson’s “think the Bible applies to every area of life, and they want to see that made into law.” Hegseth’s embrace of this ideology is more than merely 'notable,' as I saw one secular commentator remark. Hegseth has described current American politics as a spiritual war in American Crusade, but as we’ve seen, he clearly believes that this spiritual war is merely one step over from a shooting war.

This represents a dramatic intertwining of Reconstructionist ideology with the State. The ideas we discussed in Part One are now very much walking the halls of power, and they have their fingers on buttons that can end lives. Their beliefs will guide how they use that power.

And we know what their beliefs are.

Even aside from specific personalities, echoes of Wilsonite theonomy are heard in mainstream political talking points. For instance, Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) sparked debate when she told a church audience:

“The church is supposed to direct the government. [...] I’m tired of this separation of church and state junk.”​

Boebert’s sentiment represents the bedrock of “general equity theonomy” thought. In that sense, she could not have put it more clearly: the church is supposed to direct the government. One wonders how the Baptist Roger Williams, who was tortured by Puritans here in the United States for his views on infant baptism, would feel about this statement.

Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn has called for America to “have one religion," by which he means Christianity. I don’t think I need to say much more about why that’s an extremely bad idea; one need only recall that history is replete with various Christian groups declaring that other, smaller Christian groups did not qualify for the label, specifically so that the power of the Catholic state could be used against them. And yet, Wilsonite theonomy calls for exactly this legal outcome.

In other words, we now have Christian Nationalists in office and publicly using language that was once confined to Reconstructionist Greyfriars seminars. Once upon a time, you couldn’t find this stuff outside of photocopied handouts of Credenda/Agenda.

There are also major conservative organizations and networks today that trace directly to Rushdoonyite, strictly Reconstructionist influence. One is the Institute on the Constitution (IOTC), co-founded by lawyer and activist Michael Peroutka (who is gonna show up in these drops a lot). Peroutka - who was the Constitution Party’s 2004 presidential nominee - and more recently a Republican candidate for Maryland Attorney General - unabashedly teaches that “civil government’s first duty must be to obey God and His Word.” In a 2013 article, Peroutka stated, “the function of civil government is to obey God and to enforce God’s law – PERIOD.”​

This is naked Reconstructionism without even the veneer of Dominionism to defend it.