Reacting to Paul Kingsnorth's 'Against Christian Civilisation'

Paul Kingsnorth's critique of "Christian Civilisation" given in a talk at the 'First Things Erasmus Lecture' (and then published here in First Things as an article) is provocative and interesting. Because civilisation is incidentally Christian the temptation is then to imperialise it and neglect the Kingdom.

Democracy, the scientific method and free-speech etc are a natural and good parts of this world (Romans 1:20) which, as per Tom Holland's thesis, are magnified or highlighted by Christianity. The American balance of powers, the Magna Carta, freedom of religion, civic-nationalism etc are all positive by-products of the Kingdom of Heaven, and may fluctuate depending on the rise and fall of human empires and trends. God's church will continue, his Kingdom will survive regardless of our machinations. Which is the other interesting part of his critique. Some of us (including myself) were upset by government overreach during the COVID years. If 'Christian Nationalism / Civilisation' became ascendent that same government machinery that imposes various rules on us would be employed to enforce whatever version of Christianity the person or people on top decided to impose. ('Same enforcers and enforcement, new management') - Take VEOHRC for example; you can see the original divine / (& then) Christian virtues in seeking justice for the disabled and elderly etc. Now its bureaucracy is weaponized to hunt down gender and sexuality wrong-think. But if the Mormons (who are lovely & organised but heretics) take over, I don't want them running VEOHRC and imposing their version of what is correct and using the machinary of managmenet to impose their version of the summum bonum. 

Most criticism of Kingsnorth's thesis seems to divideo into two categories. The type of criticism says 'he overlooks / downplays how Christians should interact with or build insitutions'. A combination of we all can't live in caves or monastaries plus Francis Schaeffer's question of "How then should we live?" The other category of criticism says the alternatives Islamic theocracy, secular Chinese Communism or technocractic Optimistic Nihilism are no better and maybe in some cases worse. And they're valid criticisms. In way there it's constant unresolved tension at a local and global level until the Return of Jesus. 

The beginning of modern Israel: The Balfour Declaration

It is often assumed the modern nation of Israel is a historical anomaly disconnected from Jewish history. However, the Balfour Declaration (1917) and subsequent League of Nations Mandate (1922) demonstrate a widespread awareness that the Jewish desire for a national homeland was not merely the product of national self-determination but the result of a long-standing connection with what was then known as the Ottoman province of Palestine. In order to help defeat the Ottoman Empire the Allies (notably Great Britain and France) encouraged both Jewish and Arab nationalism (Hadi, 1932).  

Allied plans for the post-war future of the Ottoman Empire underwent several revision and while the Balfour Declaration was part of a larger strategic calculation, it was not an isolated anomaly. The French government was in favour of the Declaration, with the French Foreign minister Jules Cambon saying this about a draft of the Declaration in October, 1917. "The renaissance of the Jewish nationality in that Land from which the people of Israel were exiled so many centries ago." (Gold, 2017) Additionally the American Government was consulted prior to the release of the Declaration. (Gold, 2017).  Then "[o]n July 24, 1922, the British pledge to help build the Jewish National Home was explicitly incorporated into the text of the League of Nations Mandate, which called for "putting into effect" its terms." (Gold, 2017) 

Future prime minister of Israel David Ben Gurion described the Declaration in this way in 1937. "I say on behalf of the Jews that the Bible is our Mandate, the Bible which was written by us, in our own language, in Hebrew in this very country. That is our Mandate. It is only recognition of this right which was expressed in the Balfour Declaration." (Gold, 2017) Furthermore the League of Nations Mandate (1922) states in the preface: "Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country." (Laqueur & Rubin, 2008).

References

Aouni Bey Abdul Hadi, 'The Balfour Declaration'., The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 164, Palestine. A Decade of Development (Nov., 1932), pp. 12-21. 

Dore Gold, 'The Historical Significance of the Balfour Declaration' Jewish Political Studies Review, Vol. 28, No. 1/2, 100 Years Since the Balfour Declaration (Spring 2017), pp. 8-13.

Walter Laqueur and Barry Rubin, eds. The Israel-Arab Reader: A documentary History of the Middle East Conflict, London: Penguin Books, 2008. 

The beginning of modern Israel: The Battle of Beersheba

The Australian Light Horse played an important role in the defeat of Ottoman forces in the province of Palestine during the First World War (Bou, 2007). For several years the Egyptian Expeditionary Force (EEF) was stuck in a stalemate across the Siani, unable to push past the Turkish defences at Gaza. The newly appointed General Allenby then planned a feit in front of the main trenches and a rapid mounted attack on the eastern-most position of the Turkish defences at Beersheba in October 1917. Initially, the dismounted 4th Light Horse Bridge struggled to make headway against the entrenched Turkish troops around the town. Lieutenant-Colonel Murray Bourchier then made the decision for the Light Horse to mount up and charge the defences on the southeast of the town of Beersheba. (A slower dismounted attack may not have been successful and may have resulted in heavy casualties for the lightly armed attackers.) The Light Horse swept through the defences and into the town securing it for General Allenby's campaign. Ironically, poor EEF logistics plus Austrian-Hungarian artillery and German machine-gunners allowed the rest of the Turkish forces to conduct an orderly withdrawal (Bou, 2007).

References

Jean Bou, 'Cavalry, Firepower, and Swords: The Australian Light Horse and the Tactical Lessons of Cavalry Operations in Palestine, 1916-1918',  The Journal of Military History, Vol. 71, No. 1 (Jan., 2007), pp. 99-125