Dear Sir
In July’s en, a full-page piece appeared about my published work, theology and associations, with particular attention given to The Mission of God 2016 (MoG). Misleadingly deploying partial truths, ana-baptist social activist James Paul Lusk – a retired career bureaucrat determined to save Britain from a so-called ‘Christian Right’ – sadly fails to engage the thesis of the book: the meaning of the Lordship of Christ and Kingdom of God in light of God’s total law-word. More balanced reviews of MoG were published in the UK by Prophecy Today and Affinity.
The context of Lusk’s review helps account for its appearance and content. In 2017 Lusk’s own book, The Jesus Candidate (TJC) appeared, demonstrating his deep ideologic-al motivations. It consists largely of an unapologetic attack on the theology and methods of conservative Christian organisa-tions Christian Concern and the like-mind-ed Christian Institute, erroneously charging them with misrepresenting their religious freedom cases, whilst simultaneously lionizing progressive secular liberalism. Unsurprisingly, TJC was applauded by Britain’s National Secular Society as a ‘welcome and timely publication’.
TJC was published and endorsed by the radical leftist ecumenical think-tank, Ekklesia – a group promoting every in-vogue ‘social justice’ issue from what it calls ‘cli-mate justice’ to LGBTQ+ celebration and inclusion. Lusk’s foreword was written by Ekklesia director, Simon Barrow – birds of a feather flock together (cf. Prov. 13:20; 1 Cor. 15:33). Deeply indebted intellectually to Stuart Williams (disgraced pacifist John Howard Yoder’s theological heir apparent), Lusk makes a special point of thanking the Anabaptist Theology Forum and Williams’ post-Christendom book series, for their influence and support.
Cherry picking out of context one-liners from MoG to create a false impression, Lusk makes errors a careful and dispassionate reviewer would not make. Contra Lusk’s hit piece, my day job is in fact running the Ezra Institute (think tank) which I founded in 2009; I do not attribute the origins of liberalism to Cultural Marxism; I am clearly post-millennial; and I in no sense fail to distinguish between the gospel and social action, devoting four chapters of MoG to refute such a position and expose secular statism as a form of political salvation. Finally, my views of culture (Latin, cultus = worship), toleration and statecraft are far more nuanced than Lusk is willing to admit. I offer sphere sovereignty as the alternative to secular statism with nearly 700 pages of scriptural argumentation for my position.
Lusk totally fails to recognise the religious root of all life and thought and objects to the Lordship of Christ and His word over every sphere. My saviour is not the secular state, but the Messiah of Psalm 2.
Let the reader decide. Explore our resour-ces and assess Lusk’s critique for yourself. My full response can be found at www. ezrainstitute.ca
