Why are so many Christians against Christian Nationalism?

[erickinho1bra]

If we accept the definition that Christian Nationalism is desiring that your nation would be governed by the Moral Law of God, would any solid Christian be opposed to that?

Do opponents of CN really want to live in a country run by secularist morality? Or are opponents of CN just opposed to the racist side of CNs and not the ideology in general?

 

[retroGRAD3]

If we accept the definition that Christian Nationalism is desiring that your nation would be governed by the Moral Law of God, would any solid Christian be opposed to that?

This is the issue. This is rarely the definition of CN. There are like 100 different flavors of it and some of them get super weird and go into destructive territory. And sadly, the people associated with CN like Joel Webbon aren't doing it any favors.

As to the definition above, I would agree with the statement and I think most Christians would, but would do so without identifying with the CN label because of the problems I mentioned.

 

[RamistThomist]

Largely because Wolfe's argumentation painted itself into a corner, as I noted in my review.

A Review of The Case for Christian Nationalism

Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism. Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2022. The Good, the Bad, and the Gaffes In 2005, when I was a young seminarian, I wrote several arguments pr…

tentsofshem.wordpress.com

For example,

If nationalism as such always seeks, among other things, its heavenly end, then what do we make of clearly non-Christian nations? It is hard to imagine they are seeking a heavenly end, yet they are legitimate nations as such. With Wolfe I agree that Genesis 10 speaks of nations as legitimate entities, not as fodder for a future globalism. But Wolfe makes clear that these are not “complete nations,” since they lack Christ as the true end (15). This simply will not do. As the Westminster Confession makes clear, being a pagan or an idolater does not negate a ruler’s status as a legitimate ruler.

Wolfe rightly says that the secular–the lower end–serves the sacred–the higher end (27). In the very next paragraph he reverses course, saying a nation, presumably the lower end, can stop the flow of Christian immigrants into its own country. To be sure, I am not saying Wolfe is necessarily wrong on immigration, but he has “painted himself into a corner.” If we have a higher duty to “the household of faith,” then it is not clear how the lower order can stop that.

He admits “the idea of a nation is notoriously difficult to define, and identifying true nations is equally challenging” (134). I grant there is some ambiguity in the term, but it is not as difficult as one makes it out to be. Nations are primarily delineated by language and place, understanding that both terms can shift over time. England and America share the same language but not the same place; therefore, they are two different nations. That is what is missing in Wolfe’s thesis. He even goes so far as to refuse to discuss it, saying his interest “is not to discuss and identify nations and nationhood.” That is precisely what his interest should be. What good is a case for Christian nationalism if one cannot identify a nation?

 

[py3ak]

If we accept the definition that Christian Nationalism is desiring that your nation would be governed by the Moral Law of God, would any solid Christian be opposed to that?

Do opponents of CN really want to live in a country run by secularist morality? Or are opponents of CN just opposed to the racist side of CNs and not the ideology in general?

That definition of Christian Nationalism could be a motte-and-bailey tactic. The indicator would be if advocates retreat to that definition when pressed, but promote something more expansive when not feeling scrutinized. Wolves in sheep's clothing try to seem like sheep.

Furthermore, if Christian Nationalism is an accepted label, then any actions that can be attributed to Christian Nationalists provide cover for crackdowns on all Christian Nationalists, or anyone who can be associated with them. The operational preparation of the environment for "necessary" harshness on "Christian Nationalism" might be one striking reason for its recent prominence.

Again, there is a question of which Christianity, what enforcement mechanisms, and who enforces.

Or from another angle, if the temptation presented to Christ about all the kingdoms of this world is in any form offered to the church, we were wise to follow his example.

All of that just to say that opponents or skeptics of Christian Nationalism may easily have motivations other than a reluctance to be governed by God's law. No doubt that can be a factor for some as well, but it's probably an oversimplification to say that of everyone.

 

[jwright82]

That definition of Christian Nationalism could be a motte-and-bailey tactic. The indicator would be if advocates retreat to that definition when pressed, but promote something more expansive when not feeling scrutinized. Wolves in sheep's clothing try to seem like sheep.

Furthermore, if Christian Nationalism is an accepted label, then any actions that can be attributed to Christian Nationalists provide cover for crackdowns on all Christian Nationalists, or anyone who can be associated with them. The operational preparation of the environment for "necessary" harshness on "Christian Nationalism" might be one striking reason for its recent prominence.

Again, there is a question of which Christianity, what enforcement mechanisms, and who enforces.

Or from another angle, if the temptation presented to Christ about all the kingdoms of this world is in any form offered to the church, we were wise to follow his example.

All of that just to say that opponents or skeptics of Christian Nationalism may easily have motivations other than a reluctance to be governed by God's law. No doubt that can be a factor for some as well, but it's probably an oversimplification to say that of everyone.

This is my personal view point as well.

 

[MW]

If we accept the definition that Christian Nationalism is desiring that your nation would be governed by the Moral Law of God, would any solid Christian be opposed to that?

Many Christians today do not hold that the moral law of God forever binds all. Even those who accept the ten commandments tend to think democratically that people must give their consent to a law before it has any authority. So the idea of imposing "Christian laws" on non Christian people is seen to be despotic. Christians do not want to acknowledge that God is a despot.

 

[erickinho1bra]

Many Christians today do not hold that the moral law of God forever binds all. Even those who accept the ten commandments tend to think democratically that people must give their consent to a law before it has any authority. So the idea of imposing "Christian laws" on non Christian people is seen to be despotic. Christians do not want to acknowledge that God is a despot.

That's so strange. To me, banning abortion and only allowing real marriages to be called marriage are very Christian/biblical things that most Christians would support.

 

[MW]

That's so strange. To me, banning abortion and only allowing real marriages to be called marriage are very Christian/biblical things that most Christians would support.

Yes; but it has taken the abuse of laws and institutions, which once had a distinct Christian understanding, to bring modern Christians to the point where they are beginning to see the need for an explicitly Christian foundation for these laws and institutions.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I think it's already been articulated that CN is an abused term, so you're not sure who is or is not a true CN. Our current Speaker of the House was accused of being a CN because he dared to claim that all Nations are ultimately under the control of God and that laws need to be judged by that standard. From a political theory standpoint, however, he's certainly not advocating for an Establishmetarian form of government.

It's probably good to read a book about the branches in American Conservatism and other "fly-bys" around various political theries.

These two books are worth reading:

https://www.amazon.com/Religion-Republic-Christian-Founding-American/dp/1949716317/ref=sr_1_1

https://www.amazon.com/Audible-Conservatism-A-Rediscovery/dp/B09V6D5KC3/ref=sr_1_1

The latter of the two is really good at setting the stage for the divide between notionally "conservative" visions for government. I put "conservative" in quotes because a lot of what would be considered classically liberal or even libertarian ideas seem "conservative" to a society that governs by sentiment and allows all sorts of crazy ideas.

David French, for instance, seems like a conservative to Progressives, but he is a classic liberal who is devoted to ideas of evident human reason about liberties in theory. This is why he'll defend the idea that a "conservative" should protect the rights of gay people to marry or to not interfere with Drag Queen Story hour. It's a form of Jeffersonian liberty that men should be free to do anything that doesn't "harm" another.

The kind of conservatism practiced in America was what one might call a form of Christian Republicanism. It conceived of the citizen exercising constraint in the exercise of liberty and that the State had the right to constrain liberty for the public good. It had no qualms in enforcing Sabbath laws in the States or even passing laws that were in accordance with Biblical principles. Some States even curtailed or outlawed harmful religious sects.


I don't have time to really write out what I'm trying to fully articulate but, suffice to say, there are many professed Christians who would describe the vision prescribed by Yoram Hazony in Conservatism: A Rediscovery as "Christian Nationalism," but he's not a Christian. He's an Orthodox Jew. In a public forum, he even argued that America needed Protestants to recover this vision for governance because the Anglo-Christian conception of liberty is what made America so distinctive as a Republic that ensured liberty for so long. In other words, he wants to live in a country where the Laws are informed by a Christian conception of liberty and not the classic liberal notion that is best illustrated by the disasters in France

 

[ZackF]

I don’t plan on saying much about until I read at least Wolfe’s book except to notice how CN’s rollout has been a disaster. It is mired in controversy over race and ethnicity. Most conservative Christians want no part of that. Not to mention the warring factions over such things.

 

[SolaScriptura]

It’s not just that CN is an abused term, though it is… Due to the convergence of multiple ideological and “theological“ strands, even if they don’t articulate it this way, most modern Christians have a view of the Gospel, and the Kingdom, that functionally - if not explicitly - call us to a de facto globalist view. And even when these people balk and claim that they believe a Christian can be a patriot… When that’s fleshed out, their patriotism isn’t very patriotic. That’s because they think Christians by default need to be (at a minimum) soft core globalists.

That is at least one huge reason behind their reflexive revulsion to the concept of CN.

 

[davejonescue]

It’s not just that CN is an abused term, though it is… Due to the convergence of multiple ideological and “theological“ strands, even if they don’t articulate it this way, most modern Christians have a view of the Gospel, and the Kingdom, that functionally - if not explicitly - call us to a de facto globalist view. And even when these people balk and claim that they believe a Christian can be a patriot… When that’s fleshed out, their patriotism isn’t very patriotic. That’s because they think Christians by default need to be (at a minimum) soft core globalists.

That is at least one huge reason behind their reflexive revulsion to the concept of CN.

But cant this be better termed as Christian Globalists? That is that the primary allegiance isn't to a state or nation, but to the Kingdom, so that, for instance, any believer is a friend, regardless which nations war? Furthermore, wouldn't this also make patriotism a secondary issue, whereas then the preeminence doesn't go to the nation of inherited citizenship, or defending it, but to the nation that allows one to most fully "live a quiet and peaceable life in godliness and holiness." Some say that there is some sort of mandate to be loyal to nations, but I don't see that. I see the only imperative is to be loyal to God. While fighting is a biblical principle, so is fleeing.

Also, wasn't America's religious landscape founded by Pilgrims and Puritans fleeing the nation of their births?

 

[MarrowMan]

But cant this be better termed as Christian Globalists? That is that the primary allegiance isnt to a state or nation, but to the Kingdom, so that, for instance, any believer is a friend, regardless which nations war? Furthermore, wouldnt this also make patriotism a secondary issue, whereas then the preeminence doesnt go to the nation of inherited citizenship, but to the nation that allows one to most fully "live a quiet and peaceable life in godliness and holiness." Some say that there is some sort of mandate to be loyal to nations, but I dont see that. I see the only imperative is to be loyal to God.

I'd reject a Christian Globalism as much as modern CN. Yes, we have a greater bond, spiritually speaking, to Christians in other nations than unbelievers in our own. But proximity matters and we are under obligation to love our neighbors, believing and unbelieving alike, where we are and where we can have the most impact, including nationally when there is an actual national order.

 

[davejonescue]

I'd reject a Christian Globalism as much as modern CN. Yes, we have a greater bond, spiritually speaking, to Christians in other nations than unbelievers in our own. But proximity matters and we are under obligation to love our neighbors, believing and unbelieving alike, where we are and where we can have the most impact, including nationally when there is an actual national order.

That really wasnt my point. My point is, say if China and America were at war. A Christian cannot then be an automatic enemy of all Chinese, because our Kingdom citizenship supersedes national ones. So that a Chinese Christian, even if we were nationally at war, is still more of a brother, fellow-citizen, etc. than a non-believer from my own nation. This means Christians cannot be indiscriminately loyal to the nations of their birth, because Jesus has purchased us, and made us fellow-citizens of a kingdom not of this world. I dont think this can be summed up as something mere "spiritually speaking." The Kingdom of God is a greater reality than the fragile and temporary kingdoms of men. One is eternal, the other may be here today, and gone tomorrow.

 

[MarrowMan]

That really wasnt my point. My point is, say if China and America were at war. A Christian cannot then be an automatic enemy of all Chinese, because our Kingdom citizenship supersedes national ones. So that a Chinese Christian, even if we were nationally at war, is still more of a brother, fellow-citizen, etc. than a non-believer from my own nation. This means Christians cannot be indiscriminately loyal to the nations of their birth, because Jesus has purchased us, and made us fellow-citizens of a kingdom not of this world. I dont think this can be summed up as something mere "spiritually speaking." The Kingdom of God is a greater reality than the fragile and temporary kingdoms of men. One is eternal, the other may be here today, and gone tomorrow.

It would depend on the circumstances, wouldn't it? As a believer living in a non-aggressor nation under attack from an aggressor, I would not be under obligation to spare a believing soldier in the aggressor army at the expense of the unbelieving soldier in my own nation seeking to defend it from the oppressor. It's simply not that simple.

I don't think anyone here would say we owe greater allegiance to nation than Christ. We do acknowledge that we are called to live out that allegiance in particular places.

 

[MW]

That really wasnt my point. My point is, say if China and America were at war. A Christian cannot then be an automatic enemy of all Chinese, because our Kingdom citizenship supersedes national ones. So that a Chinese Christian, even if we were nationally at war, is still more of a brother, fellow-citizen, etc. than a non-believer from my own nation. This means Christians cannot be indiscriminately loyal to the nations of their birth, because Jesus has purchased us, and made us fellow-citizens of a kingdom not of this world. I dont think this can be summed up as something mere "spiritually speaking." The Kingdom of God is a greater reality than the fragile and temporary kingdoms of men. One is eternal, the other may be here today, and gone tomorrow.

The "kingdom" is not geopolitical. How then can it "supersede national ones?" Nations are raised up by God, and He rules over them all in the kingdom of power. So you would be setting up the kingdom of grace to supersede the kingdom of power, which is contrary to Scripture. National duty is a kingdom duty if God commands us to do certain things with respect to our nation. Our duty is to God first, not our fellow Christians.

 

[davejonescue]

The "kingdom" is not geopolitical. How then can it "supersede national ones?" Nations are raised up by God, and He rules over them all in the kingdom of power. So you would be setting up the kingdom of grace to supersede the kingdom of power, which is contrary to Scripture. National duty is a kingdom duty if God commands us to do certain things with respect to our nation. Our duty is to God first, not our fellow Christians.

So are you saying that nations that officially persecute Christians are justified in their persecutions because they were raised up by God. And speaking out or taking actions against those persecutions are speaking/acting out against God? Isn't saying this diminishing the whole Puritan cause, if in fact God established the COE by dictate of the King/Queen, or furthermore Catholicism by the same authority?

Matt. 10:16-42 Our Lord warned his disciples to prepare for persecution. They were to avoid all things which gave advantage to their enemies, all meddling with worldly or political concerns, all appearance of evil or selfishness, and all underhand measures. Christ foretold troubles, not only that the troubles might not be a surprise, but that they might confirm their faith. He tells them what they should suffer, and from whom. Thus Christ has dealt fairly and faithfully with us, in telling us the worst we can meet with in his service; and he would have us deal so with ourselves, in sitting down and counting the cost. Persecutors are worse than beasts, in that they prey upon those of their own kind. The strongest bonds of love and duty, have often been broken through from enmity against Christ. Sufferings from friends and relations are very grievous; nothing cuts more. It appears plainly, that all who will live godly in Christ Jesus must suffer persecution; and we must expect to enter into the kingdom of God through many tribulations. With these predictions of trouble, are counsels and comforts for a time of trial. (Matthew Henry's Commentary)

 

[MW]

So are you saying that nations that officially persecute Christians are justified in their persecutions because they were raised up by God. And speaking out or taking actions against those persecutions are speaking/acting out against God?

Somehow the discussion has changed from warfare to persecution. No, there is no justification for persecution. We cry out and protest against the persecutors. But persecution does not invalidate the nation nor absolve Christians from responsibility to seek its welfare. When we pray, Thy kingdom come, in the thought of the Larger Catechism, we pray that God would dispose the kingdom of power to advance the kingdom of grace.

 

[davejonescue]

Somehow the discussion has changed from warfare to persecution. No, there is no justification for persecution. We cry out and protest against the persecutors. But persecution does not invalidate the nation nor absolve Christians from responsibility to seek its welfare. When we pray, Thy kingdom come, in the thought of the Larger Catechism, we pray that God would dispose the kingdom of power to advance the kingdom of grace.

My point in saying that, if I follow correctly, is you seem to be saying that national patriotism is a (commanded) part of glorifying God. And this is because he sets up governments as a demonstrative display of his power (to do so.) And by reason of that, it is wrong to see the Universal Church as "higher" citizenship in which our foremost loyalties lie. The reason I mention persecution, is many nations that God has set in power, have purposely discriminated against Christians. But it seems by your reasoning (if I am getting it correctly) that a Christian has a godly duty to accept such persecution under the banner that said governments are instituted by God. I agree if there are no means to escape; but should we reject an opened cell if God should send his angel? This plays into warfare, because the same instituted governments that can either allow or prohibit Christians from living peaceful lives, can also declare national war on other nations where Christians live; who have no animosity towards our national welfare. Because of that I am saying that a Christian is not bound to loyalty to a nation to a degree that 1. they may not live a quiet and peaceful life, and 2. that they must be bound by the state to kill other Christians. Also, because our citizenship in Heaven is eternally predestined, and was bought by the blood of Christ; yet our temporal dwelling is within the confines of the will God allows us, we were born to be Christians, but not necessarily born to be Americans. Meaning, we have a choice to fight, flee, move, or stay; in and for a nation; but the elect are kept by God despite themselves. Meaning the first nation we should ever be loyal to, fight for, or care for, is Zion and its citizens (as our genuine homeland) regardless of national borders; and all other loyalties should be held only after the former are preeminently observed.

 

[MW]

The reason I mention persecution, is many nations that God has set in power, have purposely discriminated against Christians. But it seems by your reasoning (if I am getting it correctly) that a Christian has a godly duty to accept such persecution under the banner that said governments are instituted by God.

I expressly said otherwise.

As for the rest of your post -- you live in a country and you receive the blessings of Providence in that country. God commands certain duties with respect to it. You are not at liberty to stop fulfilling your duty out of some ill-conceived loyalty to heaven. Again, citizenship in heaven is not citizenship to a geopolitical entity, so there is no superseding your duty to your country. You don't fight for heaven and its citizens in the way you are called to fight for your country.

 

[davejonescue]

I expressly said otherwise.

As for the rest of your post -- you live in a country and you receive the blessings of Providence in that country. God commands certain duties with respect to it. You are not at liberty to stop fulfilling your duty out of some ill-conceived loyalty to heaven. Again, citizenship in heaven is not citizenship to a geopolitical entity, so there is no superseding your duty to your country. You don't fight for heaven and its citizens in the way you are called to fight for your country.

Are you saying that the government gets to decide if I kill other Christians or not? And if they say slay, I should, no, must do so? If so, I don't agree.

 

[MW]

So are you saying that the government gets to decide if I kill other Christians or not? And if they say slay, I should do so? If so, I don't agree.

If you are in a just war, and Christian brethren are on the other side, and you are required to kill a Christian brother, Providence has decided that you must kill other Christians. Your government has only called you up to do your duty to God.

 

[davejonescue]

If you are in a just war, and Christian brethren are on the other side, and you are required to kill a Christian brother, Providence has decided that you must kill other Christians. Your government has only called you up to do your duty to Providence.

How has providence decided, if I have the choice to do so? Are they going to take my hand and make me strike? Every war America has gotten into has been "just" according to those who declare them. Like every war which has been fought from any side.

 

[MW]

How has providence decided if I have the choice to do so? Every war America has gotten into has been "just" according to those who declare it.

My point is, the just war is the call of Providence. If it's not just, you may protest and bear the consequences. Christians are called to suffer if it is God's will.

Also, I changed my last use of "Providence" to "God" in my previous post to make it clearer.

 

[davejonescue]

My point is, the just war is the call of Providence. If it's not just, you may protest and bear the consequences. Christians are called to suffer if it is God's will.

Also, I changed my last use of "Providence" to "God" in my previous post to make it clearer.

I think I see what you are saying now. I just dont agree.

 

[MW]

I think I see what you are saying now. I just dont agree.

Take the country out of the scenario. A group of men attack your home for whatever reason. Providence calls you to self-defence. There are Christians among them. Surely you recognise your duty to protect yourself and your family.

Now add the country back into the scenario. In a just war you are protecting not only yourself and your family, but your neighbours, and all your fellow country-men, among whom are Christians.

 

[MarrowMan]

How has providence decided, if I have the choice to do so? Are they going to take my hand and make me strike? Every war America has gotten into has been "just" according to those who declare them. Like every war which has been fought from any side.

So to be clear, you would not defend the defenseless against an aggressor nation with Christians in its army? Or rather, you think the mere fact that a soldier from the aggressor nation is a Christian means you owe it to the Kingdom to allow him to kill defending soldiers and, inevitably, civilians?

 

[davejonescue]

Take the country out of the scenario. A group of men attack your home for whatever reason. Providence calls you to self-defence. There are Christians among them. Surely you recognise your duty to protect yourself and your family.

Now add the country back into the scenario. In a just war you are protecting not only yourself and your family, but your neighbours, and all your fellow country-men, among whom are Christians.

The difference is, everyone that attacked me intended me harm. Not everyone in a nation, where governments decide foe or friend, are intent on my harm. Large portions may not be; and while I am called to love my neighbors, I am called to especially love the brethren, the same way God especially loves us.

 

[davejonescue]

So to be clear, you would not defend the defenseless against an aggressor nation with Christians in its army? Or rather, you think the mere fact that a soldier from the aggressor nation is a Christian means you owe it to the Kingdom to allow him to kill defending soldiers and, inevitably, civilians?

No, that is not what I mean at all. What I mean is in war, often times people are killed or targeted indiscriminately, sometimes based solely on ethnic or national make-up, and this at the decree of established powers. Those within that nation (especially Christians) that seek us no harm, can never be looked at as merely an enemy because their nation is at war with ours. Only those within that nation that would do us indiscriminate harm should be seen as enemies. And if I were called to kill indiscriminately based on a blanket definitions of rivalry; I would refuse less I kill my brother. This is supposed to be the case now, that is, that civilians are not to be included or the targets of combat. But if it were to a degree where the entire nation were called to bear arms, my loyalties lie not in indiscriminately killing "nation vs nation" because it has been decreed by the government; but only those who seek indiscriminate harm towards us. In my opinion, Christians who would forgo their loyalty to Zion to "defend their country" indiscriminately, (or blindly because leaders demand it,) have already chosen to forsake it, and thus are now the enemies of it.

 

[MarrowMan]

No, that is not what I mean at all. What I mean is in war, often times people are killed or targeted indiscriminately, sometimes based solely on ethnic or national make-up, and this at the decree of established powers. Those within that nation (especially Christians) that seek us no harm, can never be looked at as merely an enemy because their nation is at war with ours. Only those within that nation that would do us indiscriminate harm should be seen as enemies. And if I were called to kill indiscriminately based on a blanket definitions of rivalry; I would refuse less I kill my brother. This is supposed to be the case now, that is, that civilians are not to be included or the targets of combat. But if it were to a degree where the entire nation were called to bear arms, my loyalties lie not in indiscriminately killing "nation vs nation" because it has been decreed by the government; but only those who seek indiscriminate harm towards us. In my opinion, Christians who would forgo their loyalty to Zion to "defend their country" indiscriminately, (or blindly because leaders demand it,) have already chosen to forsake it, and thus are now the enemies of it.

The qualification of indiscriminate resonates with me. I would not participate indiscriminately in a national war based on “cuz national”. I don’t think anyone here would, though.

I do think we have obligations to defend our nation of residence against aggressors, though.