No Enemies to the Right (NETTR)

The Public Square
1

New Warhorn Media post by Tim Bayly:

5 Likes
2

You can’t even be a good culture warrior and hold to the NETTR principle, let alone a pastor or reformer.

6 Likes
3

If the Church really is the ark of Noah, if it really is, what a horrible thing it is to have a son that’s down below decks and is boring holes through the hull. Because the ark is the only thing that will save you from the flood.

Perhaps the hard part is convincing everyone else on board that Johnny really is boring holes in the ship:

“But Johnny feeds the animals so well, and is such a help, he really pulls his weight around here. Not too mention he’s a good friend, and provides such warm company aboard this lonely vessel. If he really were boring holes in the ship, as you say, I’m sure it’s for a good reason. And what do you propose we do with Johnny? Throw him overboard??”

2 Likes
4

Hey brothers,

Good podcast—appreciated the discussion and found myself largely in agreement. You handled the popular version of the No Enemies to the Right (NETTR) idea well, and I’m thankful for the clarity you brought to the table.

There’s one area I wish had received a bit more attention: namely, the original articulation of NETTR by the man who coined the phrase. His version was more careful and, I think, more useful than the simplistic interpretation that’s often kicked around online.

The original intent behind NETTR wasn’t “never critique anyone to your right.” That’s a recipe for letting wolves run unchecked in the camp. Rather, the principle, rightly framed, is that we must not critique or fight those on the right in ways that serve the left’s goals or use the left’s tactics. In other words, it’s not a call to silence or blind loyalty, but to strategic clarity and loyalty to the larger cause.

The left’s game is to isolate, cancel, censor, and economically crush anyone who dissents from their orthodoxy. When we adopt their tools—or inadvertently help them accomplish their objectives—we harm our own side and undermine the broader fight. That’s the heart of NETTR as originally formulated: don’t do the enemy’s work for them.

It’s a political principle, not an ecclesiastical one. Of course we should hold our own to account. Church discipline, public correction, and honest rebuke are all essential. I’ve had to publicly correct friends and allies myself. But I try (imperfectly, I’m sure) to do so in a way that doesn’t score points for the Amalekites or play into their narrative. I discipline my team—but I don’t tackle them in the middle of a play so the other side can score.

This is also one of the reasons why, if I critique those on the right, I’m not going to do it by quoting an atheist liberal arguing from a secular framework. I’m not going to cite the Gospel Coalition to make a point against one of my brothers. I’m not going to appeal to a feminist professor at Harvard to critique the Crusades or anything else from our tradition. They’re playing a different game with different rules. I’m not using the enemy’s playbook.

That nuance is worth wrestling with. If NETTR simply means “no criticism,” it’s a non-starter. But if it means “no fratricide that empowers our enemies,” then it may be a valuable principle worth preserving and applying carefully. I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on this aspect.

Anyway, well done on the podcast. Just wanted to offer some additional thoughts for consideration.

In Christ,
Joseph

1 Like
5

Helpful comment, Joseph. Thanks.

On the other hand, I’ll not appeal to Isker / Torba because their rhetoric is as likely to come from a playbook different from the leather-bound, single-column, black-letter playbook I’m holding.

Maybe the problem is framing issues according to the political paradigm of “left” and “right” or “liberal” and “conservative.” We ought as Christians to frame everything, as best we can, in categories of biblical and unbiblical.

3 Likes
6

Good concept, but very poorly named, then.

2 Likes
8

We could debate whether you’ve properly captured the aims of the right in our nation, but the idea that the American right is the outworking of Christian principles is ludicrous hyperbole. I’d say the American right is committed above all to prosperity and part of that commitment causes incidental overlap with many of the Christian principles you’ve named. But if we are to equate the left with satan and the right with God, it is a distinction too clean. Yes, I know the left murders their babies…but there are many enemies to the right. White devils, Luther would call them. They are as likely to be without God. We ought not let politics muddle what it means to be a faithful follower of Jesus Christ.

1 Like
9

I deleted my earlier comment because I didn’t fully like how I said it. What I was trying to communicate is simply that Christianity is on the right—not the left. I’m pushing back against the kind of Tim Keller third wayism that tries to float above left and right as if Christian faithfulness has no clear cultural implications.

I’m not trying to confuse politics with the gospel, but I do believe that faithfully following Christ will inevitably have political and social consequences. And given how the terms are commonly used today, it’s clear—we’re on the right.

That doesn’t mean there aren’t wolves on the right. Wolves enter the church, and they must be dealt with. But a lot of our disagreements aren’t with wolves; they’re with brothers. That’s where I think NETTR has some value—not as a call to silence or compromise, but as wisdom for how we handle those internal conflicts.

If I’m an Israelite fighting the Philistines, I may rebuke the cowardly soldier on my right, but I don’t take off his head mid-battle. That’s reserved for the Philistine giant, not the fellow soldier on my flank.

1 Like
10

“Mere improvement is not redemption, though redemption always improves people even here and now and will, in the end, improve them to a degree we cannot yet imagine”.

CS Lewis, Mere Christianity. Conservatism offers an improvement, and a generous one, over what we have at the moment - but that is all it offers, or can offer.

2 Likes
11

That depends on what his cowardice is causing him to do. It’s not uncommon to hear that deserters will be shot, if you want to extend the analogy.

If I’m facing Nazi propaganda, being shared by not just those on the "right” but also supposed brothers in Christ, then what camp am I supposed to consider them a part of? Mine? The enemy of my enemy might be my friend, but that doesn’t make him my fellow soldier, let alone a brother, regardless of whether we mean brother in Christ or brother in arms.

Nevertheless, I think I agree with you in large part, Joseph.

I recently preached on the Church as the pillar and support of the truth, and here is how I put it in my sermon:

That idea that religion is an opiate—making people passive so that they can be controlled—that idea turns everything into politics.

Now once again, I don’t mean to say that there haven’t been churches that are corrupted by politics, in every sense of the word. Some churches have backbiting and politicking within the body, seeking to see who will have power to choose what curriculum you use, or what color the carpet will be.

Other churches have fallen prey to liberal politics, making themselves mouthpieces of the liberal agenda of sexual anarchy and celebration of murder through birth control and abortion, adding their voices to those seeking the destruction of society and the worship of demons. But that is not much of a concern to me here today.

I am more concerned in this group that churches might become a mouthpiece for conservatism. This also is a product of believing the church is just a political tool. Political conservatives are not seeking the destruction of society, but the conserving of it. And as such, faithful Christians are politically conservative. But what we need to realize is that the good we seek to conserve did not come from political parties or politicians. It came first and ultimately from God, through His church. To the extent that political conservatives are seeking good things, and I have no hesitation in saying that there are many good things they are seeking, nor in saying that not all things they are seeking are good—but to the extent they seek good things, they can thank the church for those things.

Political conservatism depends on a healthy church, proclaiming the truth. Morality is a necessary precursor to calling people to deny their fleshly desires and govern themselves. And morality comes from religion, not politics. This is why politics always appeals to religion. What is The Great Good? This is not the question that Pilate asked when he was judging Jesus. Rather he asked, “What is truth?” Because without the answer to that question we cannot know what is good.

It is through the pillar and support of the truth that the West has rejected corruption, honor-killings, immorality, and instead promoted the marriage, family, child-bearing, hospitals, schools and sanity. Conservatism can seek to protect these things, but only if it has a foundation on something deeper and stronger. It must have the pillar and support of the truth, or these things will be lost no matter how conservatives fight.

5 Likes
12

Ross,

I think what you bring up is important. I suppose I’m doggedly focused on redemption, so improvement always seems a ghastly halfway house to damnation.

2 Likes
13

I agree with this quote, and we need more men willing to say this publicly.

At the same time, as mentioned above, there are so many forms of political conservatism that are profoundly unbiblical that it’s unhelpful - at the very least - to identify the theological right with the political right.

I think NETTR, especially when Christians use it, fails to appreciate the back on planet earth way politics works. Especially if it means I can’t publicly critique guys on my side because it might help the other side. There’s always a spectrum of views/practices. And now, with legit neonazism and white supremacy making inroads into confessional Christianity, we cannot afford to be naive about how the world actually works. Whatever our own principles might be.

2 Likes
14

You need a theology that’s also fully human brother.

1 Like
15

I am a hopeless Calvinist with an abhorrence for the social gospel.

3 Likes
16

And, I suppose I should have said “improvement without redemption, first and foremost”.

4 Likes
17

I am too, but everywhere the gospel has been preached, it’s had profound social effects. Jesus’ ministry was a radical overturning of the ethnic and sexual bigotries of the first century. Luther’s Reformation saw marriage restored to its position of honour. Biblical gender/sexual ethics has produced culture changes in our own congregations.

Or maybe it’s just my idealism showing through. If our understanding of redemption is true, then we should be able to see its goodness and beauty as well. I want to lay hold of the gospel firmly, but I don’t want to let go of its tangible results around me.

3 Likes
18

I agree with you, but after some thought, the issue is the constant temptation to put the nationalism/conservativism/justice cart before the Gospel horse.

A case in point is the Black Church. It is hardly surprising that in the sixties and later they would be so concerned for civil rights - it was sometimes an issue of literal life and death. And in that context, Exodus, with its message of “Let my people go!”, becomes a very political book. But what then happened is that this part of the Kingdom message of Jesus ended up in front of the Gospel, to the point, as far as I can tell, that the Gospel is too often ignored.

4 Likes
19

You’re right. That’s certainly a very real danger to be remembered and to be avoided.

2 Likes
20

Dear Pr Spurgeon,

I’m confused as to what exactly NETTR has to offer the Church? At first it seemed you were saying NETTR as applied to the Church = rebuking/correcting in a spirit of gentleness so as to win your brother, instead of crucifying him and throwing him to the dogs. Well that’s fine and good, because that’s Scriptural (Gal 6.1) and outlined in our BCO 31.3-4 (see also Calvin’s comments on Gal 6.1). And if that’s all it is then why do we need what we already have?

But then you said this:

In that case, NETTR as applied to the Church would focus on not mislabeling brothers ‘wolves,’ not ‘cancelling’ brothers you disagree with, etc, thus avoiding unnecessary division/disunity (Side-note: funny thing about wolves is they look like brothers…). Well what exactly does NETTR offer us on this front that Scripture (and Church history) don’t already provide (Gal. 5:15)? And what exactly are we talking about when you say ‘internal conflicts’: Session conflicts? Presbytery conflicts? Denominational conflicts? Catholic conflicts? Online conflicts?

2 Problems with NETTR:

  1. NETTR is fundamentally concerned with public relations. It’s all about making sure the guys on ‘our team’ don’t go down publicly (get cancelled), because that hurts our team and our end goal. This makes sense in the realm of crude politics. Politically, the enemy is the Left. But ecclesiastically, the enemy is…who? Who exactly are the enemies of the Church that we must so desperately not ‘lose’ to? What exactly are we ‘losing’? How does ‘the enemy’ ‘score’ against the Church?

  2. NETTR is fundamentally oriented to worrying about the enemy. Well what hath Jerusalem to do with Washington DC? The Church is fundamentally oriented to the fear of God (at least it ought to be). How is NETTR as applied to the Church NOT churches covering up sex abuse? It checks all the boxes. “We can’t ‘lose the game.’”

Aside from sin –which is not bound to the Left– our enemy is actually not flesh and blood Leftists, or feminists, or homosexuals, or white supremacists. The real enemy is the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places (Eph 6:12). Satan doesn’t play fair; he’s the accuser of the brethren (Rev 12:10). Why should we bother worrying about what he and his cronies will do when we discipline our own? We ought to simply be faithful in our calling to keep the Church pure (BCO 31), and leave it to the Lord to rebuke the devil (Jude 9, Zech. 3).

I know you want to preserve the unity of the brethren, I do too, but I do not believe NETTR will help. It will inevitably paralyze shepherds and blind us to sin.

And it must be said: NETTR advocates do not even practice what they preach. They are just as guilty of isolating, cancelling, and censoring – because they are sinners. No one has a monopoly on sin.

Sincerely,

3 Likes
21

Here’s something on this from Neil Shenvi, published by the Gospel Coalition (sorry) - this might shed some more light on the matter?

Don’t Let the ‘Friend-Enemy Distinction’ Derail Your Faith