A friend asked me to watch a video of Dr. James White and Douglas Wilson discussing Wilson's idea of Christendom 2.0. If you want context, you can watch the video, but it is not necessary to follow my ideas.
I admit the idea of Christendom 2.0 in itself is appealing, but only in the way libertarianism or Walden might be. That is to say, I view it primarily as a rich source of unobtainium. In support of the advancement of Christendom 2.0, Wilson states, "Secularism is a failed experiment." He is correct, however, it seems disingenuous not to add that so is absolutely everything else we have put our minds to since the fall. Christendom 1.0 was a spectacular failure, paganism was a spectacular failure, secularism was a spectacular failure, and Christendom 2.0 would be a spectacular failure. The complete inability of man to self-govern in a way that does not end in bodies seems to me self-evident and reason enough not to spend too much energy on trying to get it right.
I have come to believe the primary job of Christians, alongside the Great Commission, is damage control. The complementary nature of doing damage control alongside the Great Commission is an idea I may pursue further at some point, but for now, I will focus solely on damage control.
One fictional, but interesting, example of living as a Christian "fixer" outside of the New Testament is Monseigneur Bienvenu, Bishop of D at the beginning of Les Misérables.
My very dear brethren, my good friends, there are thirteen hundred and twenty thousand peasants’ dwellings in France which have but three openings; eighteen hundred and seventeen thousand hovels which have but two openings, the door and one window; and three hundred and forty-six thousand cabins besides which have but one opening, the door. And this arises from a thing which is called the tax on doors and windows. Just put poor families, old women, and little children, in those buildings, and behold the fevers and maladies which result! Alas! God gives air to men; the law sells it to them. I do not blame the law, but I bless God…My brethren, have pity! behold the suffering on all sides of you!
While the world goes on about the Bienvenu, he interacts with but refuses to be consumed by its governance.
The closest the Bishop seems to come to concerning himself with matters outside of damage control is when he attends a convict who has been sentenced to death and accompanies him to the scaffold. As he ruminates on what he has been a part of he says, "I did not think that it was so monstrous. It is wrong to become absorbed in the divine law to such a degree as not to perceive human law. Death belongs to God alone. By what right do men touch that unknown thing?" He is correct, and this adds nuance to the subject to be sure. However, the character of Bienvenu does not become consumed by this notion. He continues to focus on damage control.
Indeed, it is important while doing damage control to seek justice, but not to fall into social justice activism, which seems to be nothing more than worrying about how to govern disguised by heavy doses of virtue signaling. Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that virtue signaling is Wilson's game. Apropos of the New Testament and government, it is interesting to note that there are almost zero prescriptive texts concerning this topic. The one cited most concerns paying our taxes, and most of the time it is quoted right before being explained away.
To be sure, damage control may include questions of governing/culture (Christendom 2.0 vs secularism vs whatever), but I believe that primarily it is not interested in providing answers to these questions. I know this to be the case for me, although it may not be the case for every Christian. We are, after all, each a different part of the body. Perhaps those seeking Christendom 2.0 are the brain, and I am the pinky toe? Still, I believe much of what is wished for in a Christendom 2.0, or was wished for from the Religious Right, or the Puritans or the Christian Roman Empire, etc., would be better accomplished by focusing on the pain right in front of us.
I have a singular relationship with physical and mental pain, which admittedly helps to shape my perspective, but this does not provide grounds for dismissing it as incorrect. Suffice it to say, Obi-Wan's description of the force can almost be used to describe the agony of the fallen universe, "It surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds [humanity] together". In the end, spending our limited mental, physical, and spiritual resources building Christendom 2.0 seems to me a continuation of the fruitless grasping for utopia that has gone on for many millennia in different forms. Alternatively, damage control seems an admission of a fallen universe that only reaches utopia at the behest of Christ in the Father's good time. The first position requires lifetimes of exegesis, debate, reflection, and redirection in a never-ending cycle; the latter requires the simplest reading of Scripture and application of its prescriptions.
As always, I reserve the right to be wrong.