Jacob Winograd [00:00:31]:
Hello, everyone, and welcome back to another episode of the Biblical Anarchy podcast. I am your host, Jacob Weningrad. So today’s episode is one I’ve been wanting to do for a little while, and I guess it’s not super timely because the video I’m gonna be responding to is a little old, but the content itself is very relevant. Like, I guess it’s evergreen, but becoming maybe ever greener because it pertains to not only what Christians should be thinking about in terms of politics, but it touches on things of Christian nationalism, separation of church and state. And those are things that, of course, are becoming more prevalent as Christian nationalism and those in the Christian nationalist community continue to make content, put argument out there, engage in the national dialogue, and occasionally make headlines. And we as Christian libertarians, we here at LCI, although it would be probably presumptuous and and overcorrection and incorrect to say that we don’t have any overlap with anyone who uses the title Christian nationalism. I don’t believe that’s true.
Jacob Winograd [00:01:47]:
I’ve interviewed Christian nationalists, talked to them on my show. I’ve talked to Stephen Wolf, Andrew Wilson, people like CJ Engle who don’t use the title but have overlapped with Christian nationalism. There are things that we can find that we agree on, and I even like some people who call themselves Christian nationalists. But it is something that I do also feel compelled to point out where I think that they get things wrong and to engage in this dialogue from the other side, so to speak, or from a third side. Because I feel like, unfortunately, sometimes, a lot of times, when you see Christian nationalists engaging with critics, they’re engaging with critics who I don’t think really offer great arguments on the other side. A lot of times, I’m seeing Stephen Wolf engage with sort of, like, just neoliberal or neoconservative Christians who are disagreeing with the Christian nationalist position or disagreeing with theonomists, but they’re doing so from their own place of being incorrect on the Christian position of politics on sort of like American foreign policy, on history, on eschatology, on a number of things. So the video I’m gonna be responding to today is not someone who is a quote, unquote Christian nationalist, maybe in a explicit sense, who but who from time to time says that he agrees with certain claims of Christian nationalists. And that is the YouTuber, Redeemed Zoomer.
Jacob Winograd [00:03:22]:
Overall, I enjoy, Redeemed Zoomer’s content. I’ve actually even reached out to invite him on the show to have a conversation with him because he gets some things right, but I think he gets some things wrong pertaining to politics. He has been critical of libertarianism, and I don’t think he understands what libertarianism is. And so I’d like to have a conversation and be able to ask him some questions and present some ideas to him, get him to follow-up and see where we agree and disagree. Those kind of conversations can be good and edifying even if you are, you know, trying to hash out certain disagreements, and I’ve seen him do so. We’re actually both we’ve both been on, like, the crucible YouTube channel and participated in debates. Although his debate was more theological and mine was more political. But so I’m going to it’s a short video.
Jacob Winograd [00:04:21]:
I’m not sure I’ll play the whole thing. I have thoughts I wanna speak to, and I’ll just kinda play it and then pause as I I feel led to. So we’re going to bring it up now.
Redeemed Zoomer [00:04:33]:
The early Presbyterians believed in separation of church and state, but they also believed that the state should be Christian.
Jacob Winograd [00:04:45]:
Alright. So his initial claim here is that there’s a separation of church and state, but that the the state should be Christian. Now you I’ll I’ll let him explain more of what his position is, but just initial thoughts on that. It depends on what you mean by the state should be Christian, and how do we even define what the state is? And I would say that part of the libertarian view, but I think this is not so, again, I never want to confuse anyone. And certainly, while I am a libertarian in a political sense, I am a Christian. And I think that Christians should derive principles of what is the biblical view or Christian view of politics from the Bible and not from secular philosophies. In fact, I’m gonna be going back over this here soon, And you can go back. You did a good enough job.
Jacob Winograd [00:05:44]:
Episode 1, what is biblical anarchy? Sort of makes the case for how I avoid biblical isegesis and why I don’t think my arguments are isegesis. But But I’m gonna be redoing that episode, sort of doing a remastered version of my pilot episode here soon. But I’m, not done with it yet, and I wanted to do this episode because it’s been on my mind for a while. And so I I with that caveat out of the way, certainly, I think when we look at what the Bible says about government and governance and the examples of nations and governance, we immediately, I think even just from reading the Bible, have to understand there’s a difference between the state and civil governance. Right? Civil governance is a biblical institution. Now I believe that civil governance is something that is a consequence of the fall. I don’t agree with someone like Stephen Wolf, for example, who would define civil governance as something that was inherent to human society, including pre fall society. And he goes into that in his book.
Jacob Winograd [00:06:53]:
I think the error he makes is that he is sort of defining civil governance, not as that which pertains to law, which is more about what I would that’s closer to what I would define civil governance as what I think the Bible does, but he thinks that civil governance includes this might be an oversimplification, but broadly speaking, that it includes anything we do together as a society. Right? People cooperating together in their communities, in nations, in in civil society, and that all of this different interaction and organization and collective human action could be described as essentially governance. Now language is a little bit fluid, I guess, and so words can have multiple meanings or uses. And so, yeah, in a sense, the word governance can have a very broad meaning, like church can have governance. Right? A corporation can have governing bodies. Even, like, political parties and stuff have their own governing bylaws. Nonprofits have, rule. So, like, you have the rules, and then you have the enforcement of the rules, the carrying out of the rules, or of some kind of organization, then you could maybe in a generic sense call that governance.
Jacob Winograd [00:08:14]:
Right? But the problem is there’ll be kind of a bait and switch in my opinion where we talk about that and then we sort of like, okay. But then when we’re talking about what the bible is referring to with governance, it seems like it’s always in conjunction with the initiate or the the use of coercion. Right? Bearing the sword as Romans 13 talks about or the, principle of just retribution as brought up in and I forget the chapter. Forgive me. But after the flood and the no added covenant where it said for if a if a man’s blood is shed, then by a man shall his blood be shed. So we have the principle of just retribution, lex talionis. And so these are two clear examples in the bible of the idea of governance and that being tied to the wielding of the sword. Right? The bearing of the sword, the enforcement of civil justice.
Jacob Winograd [00:09:12]:
And so right away and I haven’t even gotten to, like, a lot of his video yet. Just the first, what, like, 15 seconds. But right away, it’s like, well, what do you mean by the state? And what is governance? And then what do you even mean by these things should be Christian? Right? So, like, the the state isn’t a thing. The state is a a group. Right? Or or a an entity that consists of individuals, and those individuals do things. You know, certainly, the Bible teaches about governance and that there will be those who uphold civil justice. And we believe that that is like, well, we’d also I believe this, and then I’m more reformed. And so I would plug the Reformer Libertarian’s podcast, Greg Bals, Carrie Baldwin.
Jacob Winograd [00:10:00]:
And and, you know, if I if I wanted to, I could bring up the reformed libertarian statement and and and cite exactly how they put it. But that, you know, civil governance is a it’s like a godly office. Right? It’s a biblically defined, biblically taught office. But we have to be able to define what that office is and look at what is prescribed for that office. And understand the norms of that. And then we would have to compare that to sort of, like, what is available, what has been experimented, what’s being proposed in terms of ways of conducting, ways of executing said office and governance and see if those measure up to the prescription gave for the office as well as not falling into any contradictions or committing other sins. Right? So right away, if we were to compare even 2 different types of monopoly governances, right, so you could compare monarchy and a democratic republic such as America with a constitution, and you might be able to, on the final analysis, say that the democratic republic is perhaps less at odds with certain issues than a monarchy would be, although to there are other libertarians who have perhaps made the argument that there are some trade offs with monarchy that are more preferable to that of of a democratic republic. So there’s nuance there.
Jacob Winograd [00:11:35]:
People like Hans Hermann Hoppe. But just for the sake of argument, let’s say that a a democratic republic is better or preferable on on libertarian and Christian grounds than, monarchy. That doesn’t even mean that it’s the preferred or that it’s the ideal that it doesn’t have. So for example, in a Christian sense, a democratic republic with a a constitution can still be in danger of a sort of collectivism that distorts the way God has ordered society. It can lead to a sort of disassociation of morality where that which is usually considered to be immoral or that which would be considered unconsensual in normal circumstances would be called good or consensual just because a vote was cast. Right? And there are certain things and and this is with all states. Right? Or or at least with all or another word better word would be all monopoly styles of governance. Well, what forms the monopoly is an initiation of coercion.
Jacob Winograd [00:12:39]:
It’s a violation of consent. And so this is why although I maintain, obviously, you know, I’m I’m ecumenical with with a non anarchist Christians and non anarchist libertarians. I think the only consistent view of governance from a Christian and a biblical worldview is that a non monopoly governance, which would be, you could call that, you know, a anarcho capitalist legal order, a polycentric legal order. You could call it voluntaryism, a lot of different names for it. Right? Private law, another one that comes to mind. So right away, these are things that we have to keep in mind and we have to ask. There is such a thing as, like, a normalcy bias where we just assume because we’ve been raised in a society where nation states are the norm, that it’s like, okay. Well, when the Bible talks about government or civil justice or law or anything like that, that’s the same as what we have today in these structures.
Jacob Winograd [00:13:41]:
Right? But we have to have a an understanding of things that’s only biblical, but that’s also, like, understanding how government worked in antiquity, how it worked even several 100 years ago, and how it worked now and understand the differences there. So that’s a lot of things that we have to ask to even understand what Redeem’s Zoomer’s statement is there. And this is why I wanna have a conversation with him because without having these terms properly defined, it’s almost hard to get into the rest of the video. Now I’m going to get into the rest of the video, and this is partly because I’m just interested to continue engaging with his ideas. He has another video that’s specifically about the separation of church and state, which I’d like to do at a later point if I can’t get him on, but I would rather get him on and just be able to ask him. Not just make criticisms or observations, but ask him follow-up questions and have a dialogue on it. So alright. Let’s bring this back
Redeemed Zoomer [00:14:41]:
up. So today is an important day because I’m finally finishing the journey back to my original Presbyterian church that I built on this Christian Minecraft server. I built Saint Athanasius Presbyterian Church, but it got hijacked by the villagers who worship the pink sheep. So I retreated, and I went to the middle of nowhere and tried to start a new church, but it wasn’t nearly as good. So now I’m going to take back my original church just like a lot of Christians are trying to take back America. We’re seeing a rise in people talking about Christian nationalism, and then other Christians saying, oh, we shouldn’t do that because there’s supposed to be a separation of church and state, and Christians shouldn’t be political. Then the left wing media saying, oh, it’s all fascist. These Christians are being fascist.
Redeemed Zoomer [00:15:12]:
So it’s an important question. Should Christians be involved in politics? And if so, how much? Does that mean we need a theocracy? Does that mean we’re gonna go back to the ages of the Puritans? What does that mean exactly? Should Christians be involved in politics? So I made another video in the past about the idea of separation of church and state because this idea, this phrase is completely misunderstood. Presbyterian came up with the idea of separation of church and state, but what they meant by that was not that the state shouldn’t be religious. They did not mean the state should never make laws based on religion. They meant that the church and state should be separate institutions and not really interfere with each other, but both of them should be Christian. They should be 2 separate Christian institutions, 2 different things that are both in covenant with God. That’s why the 1600 Presbyterians were called the covenanters.
Jacob Winograd [00:15:49]:
Alright. So there’s a lot there. Right away, he he so he brought up Christian nationalism, and he said that the idea of the original presbyterians, the original reformers, was that separation of church and state is that there’s these are different institutions. Right? And so they they’re not just one body. But he still maintained that what they believed was that the government should the state should still be Christian, and it should pass laws based on the Christian faith. Now, again, so this is where everything I brought up before I played more of that is really important because it’s like, well, what do you mean by it should be Christian? So there’s a few different possibilities. Right? If by it should be Christian, you mean that, well, it would be preferable if the people who are in our government, in our state are Christian. Okay.
Jacob Winograd [00:16:53]:
That that would be one possibility, one impossible interpretation where I’d go, okay. I mean, I’m not sure that that is, like, a 100% rule. Right? And even then we have to get listen. What do you mean by a Christian? Like, you know, I mean because Basimiro might agree with me. Like, if the entire government was Mormons, they call themselves Christians, not really Christian, or, you know, he’s reformed. I’m reformed. It was entirely Catholic or it was entirely Lutheran, or if it was entirely Eastern Orthodox. I’m just saying, like, we’d have to be a little bit more precise or at least I I wanna know, like, what does he mean by that? Because there’s different meanings to the understanding of, like, even Christians being in government, making sure that they’re actually Christians and what type of Christianity is it.
Jacob Winograd [00:17:43]:
And they’re passing laws based on Christianity. Again, passing laws laws on which type of Christianity, because that can look very different depending on which Christianity we’re talking about. So, yeah, if it’s just like as a general sense, right? Just to be charitable. Like if the preference or the goal here is just, well, the people in government can be Christian or not Christian and maybe in general is on balance, like you’d rather than be Christian than not Christian. I I wouldn’t have much disagreement with that. But I I also think that we need to understand what he like, so without the clarifying question and also based on everything else he says, because he says past laws based on Christianity. Again, that an important follow-up that would need to be asked is, okay. Like because I could say that I want laws passed based on Christianity.
Jacob Winograd [00:18:36]:
But and so this was like this was actually the I had a debate with Andrew Wilson once who was an Eastern Orthodox. And he kept on, like what he tried to do was use the same argumentation I’m kind of bringing up here and be like, well, because you would rather have Christians in government and because your moral world worldview is Christian, you’re a Christian nationalist because you want Christian laws enforced on society. It’s like, well, kind of, but we have major disagreements over what what the entailment of that is. Now there’s a big disagreement between Eastern Orthodox and and and and reformed. I don’t wanna get into that. But, like, in terms of what redeem Zoomer is talking about and him being reformed, and I’m maybe not I’m technically a Baptist. So sorry, Zoomer. I’m okay.
Jacob Winograd [00:19:21]:
I’m not really reformed according to Zoomer and other Presbyterians. I personally like saying I’m lowercase r reformed. Right? Because in the libertarian world, you have capital l and lowercase l libertarians. And so I like to say there’s upper case and lowercase r reformed. But whatever I I’d also be happy just to say I’m a Calvinistic, Baptist or a nondenominational Christian who happens to agree with a lot of reformed theology, and that’s beyond just predestination. I have a very influenced by Kyperianism, very influenced by covenant theology, very influenced by sphere sovereignty, and a lot of a lot of ideas of reformed theology beyond just what might typically people might think of Calvinistic theology just is just TULIP, and and and that’s all there is to it. So, he he gets into it later in this video. I don’t wanna jump the gun too much because I might wanna play more of it.
Jacob Winograd [00:20:16]:
But one possibility within what is considered just broadly speaking reformed and Christian governments within that is, you know, the original reformers believed in what’s called establishmentarianism, which was the idea that the civil magistrate should actually pass laws to institute a a certain religion and thus that religious like like certain norms and practices of that religion in society. Now other Presbyterians then later on in in America as well as others, I think, Scottish Presbyterians sorry. No. I think the American Presbyterians did not agree with the English or the Scottish Presbyterians who they they’re the ones who supported the civil establishment of religion. And so then in the 1700, you had the first American Presbytery, which that was their adopting act at the which was the senate of Philadelphia. And they affirmed Westminster Standards, confession and catechisms. And then in 17/29, we have an official American rewrite of those standards. 7/20/29 was the senate of of of Philadelphia, the adopting act.
Jacob Winograd [00:21:41]:
And then in, 17/88, they were the rewrite of the of of those standards by the American presbyters, and they projected enforcing religious principles by means of civil government. So now, Radim Zimmer is from America as well. But I I forget his real name. I’ve heard it before. I think it might be Richard, but I I might be wrong. So I’m just going by Zoomer to where he typically goes by. So the I I don’t anyway, I should play more of what is the video before I get into much more about the confessions. But but this whole, like, idea about, like, establishmentarianism and the establishment of civil religion is important to understanding, like, well, what do you mean by passing Christian laws? If you mean that we should have Sabbath laws, if we should have blasphemy laws, if we should make sure that the Bible was taught in public schools or something like that, like, etcetera.
Jacob Winograd [00:22:37]:
Like the there’s a whole other a lot of examples that could be brought up here. So, you know, they would fall under the category of the civil establishment of religion, you know, making sure like, freedom of religion, like, maybe it’s freedom to practice different denominations, but not all denomination or all other religions. And so, yeah, there there’s a that would be passing laws based on Christian beliefs, so to speak. That would not be correct in my view. But, like, in my view, like, where I think that what the Bible teaches is that civil government is is there for the enforcement of civil justice. And so, you know, just retribution means that because it’s about coercion, that the only just use of coercion is in response to another coercion that has been initiated. So it’s defensive or it’s responsive. It’s aimed at, restitution and justice to those who have had their rights violated.
Jacob Winograd [00:23:36]:
Well, I think those are Christian principles. And so and you could say that I’m enforcing Christian principles that way with government, but that that’s why I like when I had that debate with Andrew, it was kinda like, okay, fine. Like, you could call that Christian nationalism, but that’s just kinda like redefining terms or making terms meaningless because they mean so many different things, and you have to get that into the specifics to see what I’m actually advocating for. Because it’s like, to you, Christian nationalism has all this baggage. And to me, like, when I’m saying, yeah, like, the government should, do things according to Christian norms, we’re we’re defining those Christian norms entirely differently. So that’s very important because I reject establishmentarianism. Alright. I’m gonna keep playing here.
Redeemed Zoomer [00:24:18]:
So that is the ideal Presbyterian political theology. We’re not Anabaptists. A lot of the Anabaptists during the reformation wanted to not be involved with secular politics at all because they’re like, oh, god’s kingdom is not of this world. But Presbyterians were like, yeah, it’s not of this world, but it colonizes this world. It has an influence on this world, and, God is king over everything. But they still believe in a 2 kingdoms theology that God reigns over the church and the secular world in different ways. So both of them should submit to Christ, but they’re not necessarily the same institution. That’s what we meant by separation of church and state.
Redeemed Zoomer [00:24:46]:
So I already made a video about that. But, unfortunately, since neither Trump nor Kamala Harris had a Presbyterian theocracy as one of their, political platforms, sadly, we have to wonder how we’re supposed to be involved in a country where nobody really is trying to install what we want. How politically involved should Christians be in a country that’s increasingly secular? Now a lot of these big evangelical pastors will say, oh, oh, Christians shouldn’t be involved in politics at all. A lot of Tim Keller’s followers say this. Not Tim Keller himself. Tim Keller himself was a lot more conservative than a lot of his followers. But a lot of the Kellerites or the, you know, the John Piper esque people will say, you know, separation of church and state, it’s not the church’s job to win the culture war. It’s just the church’s job to save individual souls and then let the holy spirit convert the hearts of individual people.
Redeemed Zoomer [00:25:30]:
Now obviously, that is the church’s job. Was that the church’s only job? I don’t think so. I think the church should be politically involved. I don’t think it contradicts separation of church and state for the church to advocate for the state to uphold to uphold good morals. And how do we know what good morals are? I mean, there is natural law. You can just use reason in some sense, but it’s not wrong for the government to make laws based on the Bible. Now this isn’t theonomy. I’m not a theonomist, because theonomy is a very specific position that’s actually very, very new, which says that the old testament law should be the basis for civil government in some sense.
Redeemed Zoomer [00:25:59]:
And, you know, none of the reformers believed that. John Calvin explicitly rejected that view. But that doesn’t mean the bible can’t be used for moral principles in terms of the government. So I think Christians should be politically involved. I think it’s very important. Why? If we really believe that Christ is king over everything, that includes not just our personal lives, that includes the entire world. And if we believe that Christ is king and that Christ is a good king, then it is actually loving to our neighbors to advocate for Christian principles in the public sphere, in government. Like, I feel like a lot of Christians are ashamed of their own faith.
Redeemed Zoomer [00:26:31]:
I feel like a lot of Christians feel like, oh, if if I sort of forced Christian values on the outside world, that wouldn’t be very loving of me. Why not? Don’t you think Christian values are loving? Isn’t it loving to not wanna kill a bunch of babies through abortion? Isn’t it loving to advocate for, you know, law and order, which the bible demands, and not let criminals roam the streets freely? Isn’t that loving? So if you’re not ashamed of your faith, if you really believe that biblical principles are not just what we personally individually decide to follow, if you really think that they’re objectively good, if you really think that they’re from objectively good God, why shouldn’t we advocate for biblical principles in the public square? So what I think we need to do is we need to normalize Christians advocating for Christian values in the public sphere, and that is the Presbyterian view of things. Presbyterians, the Scottish Presbyterian covenanters who wrote the Westminster Confession, they all believed this. They all believe that the state needs to submit to Christ. Now some of the more extreme Presbyterian covenanters, the r p Alright.
Jacob Winograd [00:27:25]:
So for sake of time, I’m gonna stop there. There’s more that he says that I wanted to get to, but I’m just not gonna get to it. So what I’m gonna do is read it because I think he touched on things that were important. So I I wanna find some area of agreement. Right? I agree with sort of the spirit of what he said, which is where, like, I’m not an Anabaptist, and I love my Anabaptist brothers and sisters. We just disagree on some certain theological points, including certain political implications. And sometimes certain Anabaptist, certain even just regular Baptist or, non denominational Christian tendencies are to be sort of retreatist from the world and to think that we should not be trying to transform culture or reclaim culture or have a positive influence. You know, the way he put that, like, the kingdom of god is not of this world, but it is for this world.
Jacob Winograd [00:28:16]:
It colonizes this world. I do tend to, as a Kiberian, sympathize with that, and I think it is loving to try to see more Christian values enforced in society. Again, it does depend on how we define those things though. Right? Like so insofar as redeemed Zoomer is an advocate for a more, you know, less of a radical isolationist 2 kingdoms and more for like a Hyperion comprehensive kingdom, 2 kingdoms view, so to speak. We would be in agreement in terms of the spirit of that. And I think that Christians should also, like, be engaged in politics. We shouldn’t think that because God’s kingdom is out of this world that, like, all we do is go to church on Sundays, and we just focus on on on religious matters. But that, like, politics, current events, things around the world that we should be disengaged from that.
Jacob Winograd [00:29:10]:
I I think quite the opposite. We should be very engaged in it in a way. I think part of the gospel message includes certain, like, political there’s political consequences to the gospel, is the way I would put it. Right? So so so there’s there’s agreement there in sort of the certain presuppositions that we have. But so from one of the things he says later, which he had kind of already said and what I had said said differently, he says, so if you’re Christian, no matter, what you are, you should be involved politically. But especially if you’re Presbyterian, there’s no excuse not to be. If you’re Presbyterian, if you subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith, you should have the same beliefs as the people who wrote the Westminster confession of faith again. But, like, which one? Because if you’re an you’re an American Presbyterian, then you’d have to agree with the rewrites, which means we’re against establishmentarianism.
Jacob Winograd [00:30:01]:
So we would reject enforcing religious principles by means of the civil government. And the only thing that we’re enforcing is that which the Bible was clear about enforcement, which is civil justice. Right? Which is a Christian value, but it’s not like we’re enforcing Christianity on people. So I would love to have some clarity from Zoomer on that. Another thing he says is you should be advocating for your country. We didn’t get to this part in the clip. What he says later on, he says, I have the quote here. You should be advocating for your country.
Jacob Winograd [00:30:32]:
Whatever your country is, you should be advocating for that country to submit to Christ because Christ is king. Christ is king is is king over all the nations. So Americans, you should advocate for America to officially submit to Christ, not just individuals in America. Obviously need to do that, but America collectively should submit to Christ. America collectively should be in covenant with Christ, just like Scotland was in 1600. So this is wrong because only God establishes so God only establishes covenant with people and and and groups of people. Now the covenant that is enforced, today is the new covenant. And so when you have, like, the Mosaic covenant, right, which was an eschatological intrusion, was a special covenant, had a suspension of sort of the common grace order.
Jacob Winograd [00:31:25]:
I’ve done previous episodes with that with Greg Baus from Reform Libertarians, and they’ve, of course, covered that as well in their podcast. I have links to all that in the show notes. This does not involve, however, in the new covenant. With the new covenant, what is normative is not covenants made with a collective or an institution other than the church, other than the body of Christ. So now the church influences society. Right? That’s not in question. But that doesn’t mean that America, like a nation or some political body, can or should be in covenant with Christ. We don’t live under such a covenantal arrangement.
Jacob Winograd [00:32:11]:
Christians, whether individually or in community outside the church, can be politically involved again, and I would say should be. But that does not mean enforcing religion in terms of that, which is to be submitted to voluntarily by those who have been born again in Christ, who have been chosen by Christ through election, through the gift of faith. So the real issue here is, like, what does God actually require in the new covenant era to be coercively enforced through civil governance, which is why, again, I needed to have Zebra define what he means by the state. This is and why I think it’s important to separate the state from governance because those are the state for being charitable here, the state is a form of monopoly governments, but it distorts biblical governance is my claim. I’d like him to engage with those arguments. But at the end of the day, submitting to Christ means not submitting to him because of religion being coercively enforced upon us. In fact, submitting to Christ is the opposite. Right? It means not coercively enforcing religion.
Jacob Winograd [00:33:23]:
So there’s a really good article I’m gonna plug here at the end, which will also be in the show notes by Reform libertarians, which goes into the arguments against the civil establishment of religion and establishmentarianism. And it’s gonna be a really good resource to help think about these things a little bit more deeply as well. And, yeah, I I wish I had more time, but I think that’ll be sufficient for now. I’ll probably have another go at our friend, our brother in Christ redeemed Zoomer, at some point in the future. I hope to have a dialogue with him at some point as well. That invitation is out there and always open. And if you’re watching the Zoomer, reach out to me, jacob@libertarianchristians.com or@biblicalanarchyonx. It’s also a reminder for you guys.
Jacob Winograd [00:34:06]:
You can go follow me on x. Make sure you subscribe to this channel. If you haven’t already, give this video a thumbs up. If you enjoyed the content of what we talked about here today. And that’s all I have for you. As I always conclude by saying, live at peace, live for Christ. Take care.
;?>/smartquizbuilder/includes/images/sqb-registration-img.jpg)
