Labels Without Standards

From New Calvinism to Clickbait

Christian Nationalism, Judeo-Christian, Christ is King, Woke-Right, Red Pill, America First, Zionist-shill, New Christian Right, Heritage American, Neo-Nazi, based, Fake and Gay—these are just some of the popular socio-political terms that have become common and shifted meaning depending on the context in which they are used over the past few years. This certainly creates a confusing world for people not keyed into the latest online political fights. People engaged in actual homosexual behavior are not necessarily “fake and gay” now, as the term suggests, but heterosexuals who do things perceived as liberal might be. America First may actually be at odds with MAGA and may even mean that Gavin Newsom should defeat J.D. Vance because he has a white family and a firm jawline. Judeo-Christian may no longer be a description of archeological digs in Israel in contrast to Europe, or a common ethical heritage, or a political coalition. It may instead be some kind of Christian endorsement of Rabbinical Judaism. And the list goes on.

I will seek to explain why these definition shifts are happening, what implications they have, and how we should live as Christians in the midst of all of this. For those who have not read my previous two articles, The Ruins of New Calvinism and Brands and Belonging, I argue that a desire for belonging, truth-telling, and masculine leadership created a situation in New Calvinist circles where theological systems and celebrity pastors were positioned to market holistic lifestyle brands to their followers. This dynamic was not unique to New Calvinism, but because of the hard theology and style of preaching the movement represented, it attracted a contingent of young men needing a solid foundation.

Fall of the New Calvinists

Calvinism represented a formula, easy to apprehend and opposed by enemies. To join the ranks of Calvin’s new army meant, for many, signing up to war with Arminians for the truth of the gospel. It created a place of belonging with a band of brothers and fearless generals at the top. The subsequent battles took place in churches, denominations, and on the internet. It also changed the way Christians viewed leadership.

The stringent academic standards Reformed denominations held, which valued things like seminary, ordination, and competence, gave way to new organizations that operated more like groups such as Calvary Chapel, where heart and presentation were highly prized. Charismatics, in my estimation, have typically been better showmen, with an eye for style and broad relatability. The problem with this dynamic is that it more easily opened the door for grifters, since the entry bar was rather low and the message was rather simple. A theater kid had more of an advantage in this environment than a seasoned academic.

This paralleled political leadership models in the broader society, which have essentially given way to some of the least impressive political commentators we have ever seen. Being sure of yourself, even when wrong, looking the part, and inviting negative attention seems to be the formula. Algorithms on many social media websites reward this by presenting an endless stream of your worst fears. If it is white replacement, get ready for video after video of minorities beating up white people. If it is Dark Right interlocutors, get ready for all the dirt on Nick Fuentes and Andrew Tate. Riding these waves is not hard if you can carve out a niche for yourself by tapping into these fears.

This is where labels come in. In this environment, labels function essentially as fashionable moving targets. You put on a green shirt one day and a blue shirt the next. Just make sure you do not mix up days. Christian Conservative is so 2019. Christian Nationalist was 2022. It is now New Christian Right, until a new label takes its place. Christo-Fascist anyone?

Belonging Becomes Branding

What determines which labels are used by which groups? Mostly a revolving door of Leftist fears and the desire to split assets instead of pursue joint custody after divorcing from other elements of the Right. But are labels enough to bind people together? Typically, a label arises in recognition of a tangible reality defining a group of people. The Irish come from Ireland. Christians follow Christ. Conservatives wish to conserve tradition against innovators. I have an Irish Christian Conservative friend who is very proud of who he is, but the labels did not form his identity. They simply recognized what he already was.

I contend that many people today expect far too much from labels. It is popular online right now to trash the term “conservative,” because after all, what have conservatives conserved? Well, every traditional element we still enjoy, I suppose. But are there not better terms we can use to distinguish ourselves from the ones who said they would conserve but joined the revolution instead? I am quick to point out that the people who infiltrated a good term are just as likely to infiltrate a newer term, in fact maybe even more so, since it has not had decades to attach a stable meaning to itself.

This is part of the reason I was initially skeptical of the term Christian Nationalism. I value the concepts. I do not mind the term becoming a valuable identity marker if it reflects real-world realities. The government should assist nations in conceiving of themselves as Christian. No argument here. But the label had a history of use by Bellamy clubs promoting Fabian socialism. It was wielded by the Left to signal their worst fears to those who listen to them. It did not have very many recognizable leaders. The popularity of the label was able to help some people, like my friend Stephen Wolfe, gain a hearing for their ideas. But it was quickly taken by others who essentially competed to become its unofficial copyright owner.

New Christian Right was a broader term and one I liked more. There does seem to be a renewed interest in a uniquely Protestant political philosophy in Christian conservative circles. Yet as that term becomes the lingua franca, platforms and personalities seek to infuse it with their own projects. I have always liked the term heritage America since I first heard Anne Smith mention it on my podcast in 2021. American heritage is a real, tangible thing, and it has been viciously attacked. It is not really a new concept, but if it increases in popularity in this social media age, what is to stop an odious character from pirating it for their own ends?

When Words Die

Four years ago I released a documentary titled American Monument, which traced the Left’s iconoclasm back to a revolutionary impulse to replace a virtue metric with an ideological one. In short, young social justice warriors were angry about the world they inherited, which had produced inequalities they viewed as fundamentally unfair. One of the ways previous generations conserved these inequalities was through a moral framework impressed with scientific advances, battlefield bravery, and regional legends particular to the “majority culture” that erected them. In their place, the Left erected what I call “negative monuments” because, rather than choosing the most worthy examples of internal virtue from the culture to elevate, they judged historical figures and events based on external positions those figures and movements held in opposition to the broader culture. Down with Stonewall Jackson and up with Stonewall.

One of the documentary contributors was Dr. William Wilson, a professor emeritus at the University of Virginia specializing in literature and religious studies. He made a point that still sticks with me. He said:

C.S. Lewis found that as words die they take on a halo. They don’t point out to the world but they point into me. You know, somebody who talks about a radical dude probably does not know what radical really means. These words become things that just move their heart. They don’t point to the world anymore. They don’t point outward. And racism has certainly become that. If you ask them who’s Lee, they would say he’s a racist. They know nothing else because they don’t know a thing about him. They just know the bad word “racist.” You know, or “fascist.” They don’t know what a fascist is. It’s just a bomb that they throw at you. It’s just the last thing that you want to be called. And it all has to do with their violence, with their emptiness. They don’t mean anything.

For me, this insight from Dr. Wilson perfectly describes what has happened on the Left and what is now happening in some quarters of the Right, including the Christian Right. Labels are rising and falling with rapidity because they are not fully anchored in temporal realities, let alone anything transcendent. They are like the clothing we wear, which frequently changes as people in Paris, London, and New York decide what famous people will wear. To me, terms like “Christian” and “Conservative” are like a suit and tie. They stand the test of time, and most people know exactly what they signal. The changes their reputations undergo are minor compared to more casual styles.

The reason a suit signals decorum is because it reminds us of standards. A tailored jacket that forces us to sit up straight with our shoulders back, with restrained colors that are not too opulent and a neat, orderly appearance, communicates natural form, excellence, and respect. These are timeless principles and standards to abide by across generations. Sure, someone can wear a suit who does not believe in those things, but they do so as a hypocrite. Perhaps no hypocrite is despised more than the perverted pastor or the predatory businessman. At least members of MS13 look like they intend to do you harm.

Enduring Standards

As standards and quality have loosened, branding and cheap formulas have increased. The internet, social media, and AI have only sped this process up. This is what happened, to some extent, in the Young Calvinist movement and what is happening more broadly in society. As long as someone held to the five points, was able to deliver a hard-hitting sermon about depravity, and looked cool and relatable, they were more or less elevated to leadership. As I explained in The Ruins of New Calvinism, those guys train wrecked their reputations on social justice and scandals, so whoever remained of their progeny ended up rebranding around other brands and formulas. The standards even the previous crew of hip pastors represented pre-2020, which included personal piety and expository preaching, are now failing.

It makes sense to a certain extent. If they betrayed us, and they promoted spiritual disciplines and verse-by-verse interpretation, what good did those standards do them? I fell into this a bit myself. I have thought on more than one occasion about how figures like John Piper and Mark Dever had colossal political blind spots despite the way they talked about saturating themselves in Scripture. The darker part of me wondered what use there was in engaging in a devotional life when it did not seem to help them navigate the challenges of 2020. I think I surprised my own father a bit after I graduated seminary. He encouraged me to get ordained, only for me to almost violently reject his suggestion. I surprised myself as well. Why did I do that? It was simple. I knew too many ordained men I did not respect because they were never worthy of ordination. I took out my frustration on ordination itself.

It would take a series of blogs to expose the range of standards that have been infiltrated and devalued, but consider a few. Undergraduate degrees are valued like high school diplomas were thirty years ago on a good day. Journalistic standards are forgotten. Expectations for gender roles and adulthood are severely diminished. Masculinity, where it still exists in the public sphere, seems cheap and brand-heavy. Small business owners are excited when employees simply show up for work. The entertainment industry attracts viewers through appeals to hormonal urges, fake action sequences, and profanity-laced tirades. Politics has become entertainment. You see what I mean?

Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 3:12-15:

Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, each one’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each one’s work. If anyone’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet only so as through fire.

I wonder sometimes how many people with large social media followings, large bank accounts, and attractive images will be disappointed on the day of judgment. Distinctions and separations are inevitable and sometimes required this side of heaven, but the substance does not belong to “Paul” or “Apollos,” at least for Christians. We build on the foundation laid by Jesus Christ, and we build with a weighty attention to excellence and virtue. Unfortunately, the Corinthian church was not doing that when Paul wrote his first letter to them. They hollowed out the reason for spiritual gifts by forgetting that the standard of love was to be their motivation. They dropped their standards concerning sin, allowed sexual immorality to become normalized, all the while arrogantly maintaining their own moral superiority. I cannot help but think Christians who gave a pass to homosexual activity, vile speech, and dishonest narratives about particular groups of people are going to have a rude awakening if they do not repent.

What we need to do as Christians is uphold standards. We should not be using profanity, at least not the way the heathen do. We should not be denigrating truth adjudication processes, many of which are derived from biblical teaching on evidence and corroboration, simply because we want to blame a certain person or group. We should not despise scholarship and decorum simply because many in those worlds have failed to live up to the standards they were supposed to uphold. We should be less concerned about superficial brands. Use them if they are useful, but do not craft a life around them or treat them as strict friend-enemy lines. The labels that mean the most to us should be rooted in tangible or transcendent realities. We should get back to standards.

I am not advocating the Benedict Option, but I do think the world of superficial emptiness will crash down. It must. It can only prey on the stability we enjoy. Our problem is particularly exaggerated because of our own decadence. When actual emergencies begin to happen, there will need to be a cadre of stable leaders waiting in the wings for people to follow. Make sure you are that person. Do your devotions.