Probing Christian Nationalism
The mainstream media now uses the words “Christian nationalism” as a political cudgel against Republicans. Rob Reiner, the former “meathead” of Archie Bunker fame produced a documentary against his caricature of “Christian nationalism.” The left labels new Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, a “Christian Nationalist.” This last week, Politico writer, Heidi Przybyla, made news herself with this statement on television, attacking Christian Nationalism:
The thing that unites them as Christian nationalists, not Christians because Christian nationalists are very different, is that they believe that our rights as Americans and as all human beings do not come from any Earthly authority. They don’t come from Congress, from the Supreme Court, they come from God. . . . The problem with that is that they are determining, men, are determining what God is telling them.
Apparently this is news on the left, that people believe that rights come from God. This was, of course, found in the Declaration of Independence (1776) by the apparently Christian Nationalist, Thomas Jefferson:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Not long ago in 2018, professing conservative commentator, Jonah Goldberg, wrote something akin to Przybyla in National Review:
Let’s begin with some somewhat unusual assertions for these pages.
Capitalism is unnatural. Democracy is unnatural. Human rights are unnatural. God didn’t give us these things, or anything else. We stumbled into modernity accidentally, not by any divine plan.
Christian Discussion of Christian Nationalism
As much as the left picks Christian Nationalism as a talking point, Christians are discussing it. Here are important books in the debate:
The Case for Christian Nationalism, by Stephen Wolfe
Citizens & Exiles: Christian Faithfulness in God’s Two Kingdoms, by Scott Aniol
Also several have written many articles on Christian Nationalism, both pro and con. I understand the rise of the terminology. I’ve written posts here with a consideration of Christian Nationalism, but the very idea of consideration drew fierce opposition for even broaching the subject. Never have I said I agreed with Christian Nationalism. However, I have questions that did not and do not relate to the popularization of the concept of Christian Nationalism.
Basis For Considering Christian Nationalism
My questions and then thoughts, perhaps answers, arise from the following.
One
One, the first amendment of the Bill of Rights and to the United States Constitution guarantees religious freedom. The first sentence of the Bill of Rights starts with this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Analysis sees two clauses: (1) no establishment of state religion, and (2) free exercise of religion. I contend there is already the establishment of a state religion and that free exercise is at least abridged. The latter proceeds from the former. I like saying, “If there is a state religion, then it matters which one.” There is a state religion and it is against God, not even for God. Everyone does already subjugate to the anti-God state religion.
Two
Two, if the United States functions according to God-given rights, then it should not ignore the one and true God. All truth comes from God and it is a lie when the state will not acknowledge this. Going back to number one, it is a religion that rejects this, not neutrality.
The vacuum from great desire not to establish state religion acquiesces to false state religion. God is truth. The Bible is truth. The one God and His Word, the Bible, are not some tier of religion, which is separate from reality. This is our Father’s world. A nation cannot and will not function according to truth and laws without the acknowledgment of the true God.
Three
Three, God wants application of His Word to everything. The Bible is sufficient. God wants application of scripture to employment, to culture, to art, to government, yes, to everything and everywhere. To occur, this must be open, welcome, and purposeful. It should not be a process incessantly hidden or camouflaged, so as not to reveal its occurrence. Let God be God.
Four
Four, free exercise requires openness in conversation about everything in God’s Word. It requires quoting scripture like scripture is in fact authority. This means saying, we’re going to do this because God wants us to. God founded government. It isn’t matter and motion. Truly discussing rights, since they do come from God, requires including God in the discussion.
Opening the Can of Worms
I believe I can give more than the above four, but that’s enough to percolate thinking and expressing on this matter. The closing of the Constitution of the United States does not mean the end of discussion on the Constitution. It is not inspired. It is not God’s Word. Did it fail in the first amendment and really throughout the Constitution because of that failure?
Before the completion of the United State Constitution, Hamilton and Madison spent hundreds of pages discussing these ideas. Did that yield a perfect masterpiece? Is any kind of correction over? Questioning it is not akin to challenging the Word of God. I believe it is just the opposite. The Bible requires someone to prove it and even go back to the drawing board.
More to Come
Pastor Brandenburg, thank you for writing on this matter and bringing attention to it. For the past two years I have given some thought to the rise of the term “Christian Nationalism” in the public discourse. I passively follow Andre Torba and Stephen Wolf through their social media for the purpose of understanding the phenomenon. I’ve read Andrew Torba’s book. I don’t recommend it beyond trying to understand his position.
In my assessment, those on the right at this time driving the Christian Nationalism narrative are a small faction, and are enemies of Christ and Religious Liberty. If they had their way, they would rewrite the constitution to establish an “American State Church,” or in some more extreme examples, like Nick Fuentes, they identify the Constitution as the source of all America’s problems, and advocate abolishing it entirely. The rationale being democratic secular government has led to wokeness and extreme degenerate excess. Nick Fuentes is a professed Roman Catholic and believes the United States should become a Catholic State.
There is a larger faction on the left also contributing to the Christian Nationalism narrative as a source of alarm and a rallying point for action. I believe this group is larger because the majority of media is left or left leaning, and the drive for content creation pushes more volume from this side.
This leaves the majority of Americans in the center either passively in favor or against Christian Nationalism, or undecided, not really knowing what it is all about, beyond their basic understanding of the definitions of “Christian” and “Nationalism.” Both favorable terms for most people on the right, clever PR, in my opinion. On the surface Christian Nationalism seems like a worth while cause, but any examination of it’s thought leaders exposes its shallow ugliness, hatred for the Jews and Israel, hatred for the Constitution, inseparable postmillennialism or amillennialism presuppositions, Universal Church presuppositions, and largely an unregenerate form of Christianity. For this cause, I see it as a danger and likely a Jesuit conspiracy, and another chapter in “How do we Destroy the Great Baptist Republic of the United States?” This is only my opinion and I do not dogmatically insist anyone else accept it.
To your point, I do think discussing, and thinking about the present state of the Union, its problems, their causes, and possible solutions as a positive venture.
I recently finished listening to Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville via Audible, and in his Volume II, Appendix H, he chronicles requirements for the voting franchise in the United States as they were at that time. In addition to being a free man and a citizen, other requirements were added in many states, like owning a certain amount of property. Many today would likely find all of these qualifications distasteful, but thinking about our country and its immense problems, I believe there is a connection to our liberal distribution of the voting franchise to everyone who turns 18, regardless of their gender or their stake in society, and if some reports are to be believed, many non-citizens also, and our present state of rapid decay.
I see this as national suicide, a kind of slow fatalism, with a predictable disastrous outcome. In my assessment, we should return to our former practice of limiting the voting franchise to men of good reputation. Further, these men should be married and never divorced. This would allow for men of low means (the majority) to participate in civic government and assuage any communist influence over material class divide. Additionally, by limiting it to men who are married and never divorced, you accomplish several biblical principles. Men lead as head of their homes and communities and there is a natural check on the merits of their decision making by forcing them to maintain a successful marriage. Further, a practice like this would assert a Christian worldview, regardless if those men were regenerate or unregenerate; the unregenerated forming the greater majority of the population.
I think this is just one step that would have immediate and long-term positive effects in both stopping the United States from destroying itself, ending the insanity of wokeness, and driving our nation back into a more Christian World view.
Liberty is only for a saved people (2 Cor. 3:17). If a nation cannot govern itself, I believe, a more tyrannical form of Government is required. If a State will not repent and follow God’s precepts and principles, the Lord will raise another nation to judge them. Ancient Israel (covenant relationship notwithstanding) in scripture is evidence of that. That reality, I believe, is very real for the United States, and therefore, there is a great need to end the madness, and practice a kind of Roman Decimation (figuratively) used by their Legions on our form of government.
Finally, this is all my opinion, and I understand if you or others don’t agree. Let everyone come to their own conclusion.
Thanks Benjamin. I skimmed it so far, but I’ll probably come back with more comments. One more thing — I haven’t read any books on Christian Nationalism. I’ve read Christian Worldview books that explore that bifurcation of truth into two tiers, seeing the Bible as something totally subjective and just personal, in contrast to science.
My apologies for the length, grammar, and syntax. I read your post and my mind was flooded with thoughts.
In summary:
-Discussion on Christian Nationalism is good.
-Christian Nationalism thought leaders would not be our friends.
-Discussing the United States, its problems, and possible solutions is good.
-One thought I have to that end is modifying the voting franchise (probably unrealistic democratically).
I agree with you that there is a state religion, it’s not Christianity, and this issue is worthy to talk about too. I am thankful for what rights we are afforded under the protection of the law.
Another thought.
I am about a third of the way through my first reading of Thomas Armitage’s History of the Baptists. I’ve read other histories on the reformation and the 30 Years War. It does seem to me having a form of Government protecting your religious interests is a prudent thing. Not to establish a religion but to guarantee religious liberty. The United States, for its many faults, does generally provide this and for that I am very thankful to our God.
Benjamin,
I don’t have much to comment on your two comments. I can’t disagree with someone who says they’re against Christian Nationalism. I understand. However, if we wanted a Christian Nation, we would want that. I’m sure you would want that. I’m going to write more about this.
I think it’s worthy to bring light on the subject and allow discussion on the matter from a Biblical perspective. By doing so, I think you’re doing the right thing. I also understand the zeitgeist has in effect made two sides. The Left: “Science,” Socialism, Wokism; versus, the Right: “Religion,” Capitalism, Christian Nationalism. It seems like a Hegelian dialectic that seeks to push a synthesis that is further away from the truth of scripture, regardless of the language used to describe it. We likely agree with Christian Nationalists socially far more than we disagree. Leading us into what I think is your point. There is a State Religion and it’s not Christianity, and if the State is already violating its own guarantees provide in the Constitution, what do we do? As of now, I know from experience (as I’m sure you do as well), the legal situation for believers is still very strong in favor of Religious Liberty, even if the State does all it can to undermine it. Lord willing, I’m looking forward to the rest of your series.
On a lighter note, I came across an amusing revelation on the word “scientific.” Whether intentionally, or unintentionally, it’s three Latin words together: “Sci enti fic,” meaning “know that it is fiction” according to Google Translate. Maybe Bro. Ross can confirm or deny, since I know he is learning Latin.
Exodus 18:21-22 and Deuteronomy 1:13-17 give some good Scriptural principles about the type of men that should lead a nation. Although given to Israel I think those same principles would be good today and that a man who feared God would both speak of God and seek to implement the principles of God’s Word into any governmental policy he proposed.
On a practical level, do you think it’s possible for secularism as a religion to be removed from the governance of our society? I don’t see anyone even trying to do that except maybe you with your blog but I’m not sure if you’ve quite got the influence to change the course of America, though if I remember right Lebron James reads here at times so maybe you’ve got more influence than I imagine.
I got a big laugh out of my influence to change the country. 😀 Hahahaha. I’m going to write more about this so I don’t want to steal my own thunder. All of us can have some influence though in the way God uses us, especially right where we’re at. You don’t disagree with that though.
My exploration here related to Christian Nationalism asks what to expect of government or changes in the government of the United States. Maybe we should consider that those two clauses at the beginning of the first amendment are not enough.
Just a few thoughts on government, not so much directly on Christian Nationalism. All human government is flawed by those who compose it — sinful humans. Though we Americans are enamored by our own history and type of government, human government is of such a nature that it, according to the circumstances, it could be better to live under a benevolent dictatorship than a tyrannical democracy. It is my understanding that the old Baptist preacher & clerk of the Philadelphia Association did not support the Revolution, because he feared it would be worse to live under the Christian denomination that might gain control of the country than to live under the Church of England.
I think our American experiment worked generally well because the great majority of the people entering it were founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic. We no longer have that, and our system does not and will not work well without the leadership being a majority of moral and religious people. The politicians of whom we complain ultimately are a reflection of the people who elect them.
This nation and its Constitution is not a perfect masterpiece, and there is much room for correction. My fear is that we do not have a populace with the moral fortitude, clear thinking, or biblical worldview to make corrections for the better. Corrections on the left are making and will make things worse. I admittedly do not know enough about the ins and outs of Christian Nationalism, but the loudest voices of Christian Nationalism that I know would, once in power, eventually oppress and persecute folks like you and I. However, those I know may not be a good representation of the overall view.
“It is my understanding that the old Baptist preacher & clerk of the Philadelphia Association MORGAN EDWARDS…”
Morgan Edwards was in my thought, but I did not get his name typed in there for some reason.
Robert
That is well said
Jim
Robert,
I think your comment is good. Also, I think it is right. What you said, because of that reality, maybe it’s impossible to put this all back in the bottle. David Barton wrote this book, The Myth of Separation, that I read maybe thirty or so years ago, but it challenges whether the US Constitution teaches the separation of church and state. It’s not in the first amendment. Again, it’s those two clauses. Because of the quality of the men of that day, they had a different view of the first amendment, that it didn’t mean that you could not speak of God in the public square, apply biblical doctrine to laws, etc. After all, Moses and the two tablets are carved into the Supreme Court building, as if the founders thought the Bible did buttress what they did there.
I”ll be writing more about this, but not for today. I haven’t posted today, because I wasn’t able to finish what I was writing. Thanks again.
Any christian nationalist regime would be in alliance with or subsumed under the Roman whore. the 1st amendment is as good as it gets in a fallen world.
Tyler,
I think you’re speaking eschatologically, maybe, looking forward to the future Antichrist and false prophet. I’m talking about something before that in the church age. If we have a true first amendment and can speak how we want to speak according to God’s Word, it might be the best we’ll get in a fallen world. I can’t say you’re wrong.