Shouldn't all Evangelicals want Christian Nationalism?

[lifepsyop]

Christian Nationalism would result in many more people hearing about the Gospel of Jesus. The gospel would shine through every major institution, instead of being mostly hidden or mocked as it is today, at best an historical relic.

According to Evangelicals, nothing is more important than this mission to have more people one earth hear the Gospel.

The nation itself would be a kind of witness about the reality of Jesus Christ, in the same way that we worship individual liberty and the spirit of democracy today, as the ultimate goods of mankind.

So what do evangelicals say in response to this?

I suppose they may disagree with the methods that the Gospel is preached, but who are they to resist the methods as long as Jesus is being preached?

The former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. - Phillipians 1:17-18


This is where I see real tension between modern Christianity and the Gospel. There are idols in between them, idols that the leftwing and rightwing share. I always picture it as the Statue of Liberty holding the Cross. The idea is that they are not willing to sacrifice either of them, and give glory to both in a kind of syncretized secularized modern Christianity.

 

[David Lamb]

Christian Nationalism would result in many more people hearing about the Gospel of Jesus. The gospel would shine through every major institution, instead of being mostly hidden or mocked as it is today, at best an historical relic.

According to Evangelicals, nothing is more important than this mission to have more people one earth hear the Gospel.

The nation itself would be a kind of witness about the reality of Jesus Christ, in the same way that we worship individual liberty and the spirit of democracy today, as the ultimate goods of mankind.

So what do evangelicals say in response to this?

I suppose they may disagree with the methods that the Gospel is preached, but who are they to resist the methods as long as Jesus is being preached?

The former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. - Philippians 1:17-18


This is where I see real tension between modern Christianity and the Gospel. There are idols in between them, idols that the leftwing and rightwing share. I always picture it as the Statue of Liberty holding the Cross. The idea is that they are not willing to sacrifice either of them, and give glory to both in a kind of syncretized secularized modern Christianity.

Well, my response would be that in New Testament times, for example the period described in the book of Acts, the gospel spread greatly, yet there was no Christian Nationalism. The basic fact is that it is God Who gives the "increase" to His church:

“5 ¶ Who then is Paul, and who [is] Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one? 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. 7 So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase.” (1Co 3:5-7 NKJV)

 

[lifepsyop]

Well, my response would be that in New Testament times, for example the period described in the book of Acts, the gospel spread greatly, yet there was no Christian Nationalism. The basic fact is that it is God Who gives the "increase" to His church:

“5 ¶ Who then is Paul, and who [is] Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one? 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. 7 So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase.” (1Co 3:5-7 NKJV)

Okay, but there is no barrier from Christian Nationalism at all implied there. Would Paul have objected to the Gospel spreading into the government and being officially recognized there?

Isn't our very knowledge of the Gospel largely due to the fact that God used Christendom and Christian monarchies to spread it throughout the middle ages? These are the times when the Gospel spread like wildfire. Why would Evangelicals be against a popular movement to go in that direction again, away from the gods of democracy and liberty.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Christian Nationalism would result in many more people hearing about the Gospel of Jesus. The gospel would shine through every major institution, instead of being mostly hidden or mocked as it is today, at best an historical relic.

According to Evangelicals, nothing is more important than this mission to have more people one earth hear the Gospel.

The nation itself would be a kind of witness about the reality of Jesus Christ, in the same way that we worship individual liberty and the spirit of democracy today, as the ultimate goods of mankind.

So what do evangelicals say in response to this?

I suppose they may disagree with the methods that the Gospel is preached, but who are they to resist the methods as long as Jesus is being preached?

The former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. - Phillipians 1:17-18


This is where I see real tension between modern Christianity and the Gospel. There are idols in between them, idols that the leftwing and rightwing share. I always picture it as the Statue of Liberty holding the Cross. The idea is that they are not willing to sacrifice either of them, and give glory to both in a kind of syncretized secularized modern Christianity.

Christian Nationalism is idolatry. It , as it claims, puts " country first". It's mission is not first and foremost to grow the Kingdom of God which is not of this earth, it is to grow a Thecratic system using the Gospel as a catalyst for power. Look into the Seven Mountain Mandate.

Seven Mountain Mandate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[PloverWing]

@lifepsyop : When you say "Christian Nationalism", do you mean having Christian faith and practice enforced by law, or do you mean something else? If you want enforcement by law, how specific would it be -- would you select one specific denomination to have its beliefs and practices enshrined in law? I ask, because I wouldn't want to see the violence of the Reformation era repeated.

If you just mean that you would enjoy living in a country that's made up entirely of Christians, all following the faith and practice of a particular church -- I agree that could be a good place to live in. I had a conversation with a family member just yesterday in which we were envisioning a community (not a country, but maybe a town) in which everyone was Quaker, or, alternatively, everyone was Episcopalian, and everyone in the town was following the same religious customs and values together as a community. That could be a nice experience.

 

[lifepsyop]

Christian Nationalism is idolatry. It , as it claims, puts " country first". It's mission is not first and foremost to grow the Kingdom of God which is not of this earth, it is to grow a Thecratic system using the Gospel as a catalyst for power.

Christian Nationalism is by definition the submission of the country to Jesus. Definitely not "country first"... It could not be more idolatrous than the current system... Secular idolatry of Americanism and liberal democracy is way more extreme and leads nobody to the Gospel. So why are Evangelicals so passionate about maintaining the current system?

There will always be hypocrites using the church for their own power, no matter what political theology you have. So why not err on the side of greater exposure to the Gospel as we would undoubtedly find in an officially Christian nation.

 

[lifepsyop]

@lifepsyop : When you say "Christian Nationalism", do you mean having Christian faith and practice enforced by law, or do you mean something else? If you want enforcement by law, how specific would it be -- would you select one specific denomination to have its beliefs and practices enshrined in law? I ask, because I wouldn't want to see the violence of the Reformation era repeated.

If you just mean that you would enjoy living in a country that's made up entirely of Christians, all following the faith and practice of a particular church -- I agree that could be a good place to live in. I had a conversation with a family member just yesterday in which we were envisioning a community (not a country, but maybe a town) in which everyone was Quaker, or, alternatively, everyone was Episcopalian, and everyone in the town was following the same religious customs and values together as a community. That could be a nice experience.

Of course you can't enforce faith. You could however have laws against blasphemy. A Christian society would not tolerate multi-billion dollar entertainment industries that regularly blaspheme and mock Jesus and Christians.

So, no, definitely not forcing people to be believers, but Yes to an official national recognition of Jesus as Lord over the nation state, and a general intolerance for any major atheistic or anti-Christian influencers in the public sphere.

 

[bèlla]

I consider christian nationalism a social movement which has no connection to the church. I believe it's unbiblical and divisive and will not support it.

~bella

 

[ralliann]

Christian Nationalism is idolatry. It , as it claims, puts " country first". It's mission is not first and foremost to grow the Kingdom of God which is not of this earth, it is to grow a Thecratic system using the Gospel as a catalyst for power. Look into the Seven Mountain Mandate.

Seven Mountain Mandate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I see Christian nationalism as operating on "natural law". The knowledge to know good and evil by nature. The law of the secular community to the religious on a basic human level . It operates on in this country. No matter their religion or lack thereof.
Looking to the good for all it's people. We also tend to this principal as universal in how we view other countries. Men know it naturally.
Our constitution and bill of rights is the original documents reflecting this.

 

[JustaPewFiller]

Of course you can't enforce faith. You could however have laws against blasphemy. A Christian society would not tolerate multi-billion dollar entertainment industries that regularly blaspheme and mock Jesus and Christians.

So, no, definitely not forcing people to be believers, but Yes to an official national recognition of Jesus as Lord over the nation state, and a general intolerance for any major atheistic or anti-Christian influencers in the public sphere.

But, forcing people to be believers is essentially what happened in the middle ages which you mentioned above as a period when the Gospel spread.

Source at link below ->

Conversion by Coercion: Jews and Pagans (400–1500)

AbstractAs Christian European society expanded geographically and as the Latin Church insisted on its universal rule, the perceived contamination of Christ

academic.oup.com

It also happened with Native Americans and in various colonies.

Then you get the issue of exactly whose interpretation of Christianity will be enforced and what are the laws around it and punishments for breaking it.

Punishment could often mean death in the middle ages (and later). Not all were pagans. There have been several Christians accused of heresy that have been put to death by other Christians for either differing believe points and/or "rocking the boat" too much.

One thing I would advocate. Do some research on life in the middle ages when "The Church" held the power. Then do some research on life in countries that currently practice a form of religious nationalism such as many of the Islamic cultures.

Then ask yourself, if the US enforced Christian Nationalism, would we turn out so differently than those counties several years down the road?

We are all human and we have seen the corruption of power many times before in both secular and religious areas. After all, there is nothing new under the sun. (Ecc 1:9)

To me it seems a bad idea.


Let me ask it this way.

Consider these two examples.

(1) I try to live a Godly life and I proclaim the gospel to my neighbor and he accepts Christ and is saved and turns away from his sinful life.
(2) I am tired of my neighbor's sinful life. I tell him that I am going to beat him up until he accepts Christ and then I will beat him up again every time I think he sins. He is afraid of me and says he accepts Christ and he turns away from his sinful life out of fear of what I will do if I catch him.

Which of these examples is more pleasing to God?
Which is these examples is most like Christian Nationalism?

 

[ralliann]

But, forcing people to be believers is essentially what happened in the middle ages which you mentioned above as a period when the Gospel spread.

Source at link below ->

Conversion by Coercion: Jews and Pagans (400–1500)

AbstractAs Christian European society expanded geographically and as the Latin Church insisted on its universal rule, the perceived contamination of Christ

academic.oup.com

It also happened with Native Americans and in various colonies.

Then you get the issue of exactly whose interpretation of Christianity will be enforced and what are the laws around it and punishments for breaking it.

Punishment could often mean death in the middle ages (and later). Not all were pagans. There have been several Christians accused of heresy that have been put to death by other Christians for either differing believe points and/or "rocking the boat" too much.

One thing I would advocate. Do some research on life in the middle ages when "The Church" held the power. Then do some research on life in countries that currently practice a form of religious nationalism such as many of the Islamic cultures.

Then ask yourself, if the US enforced Christian Nationalism, would we turn out so differently than those counties several years down the road?

We are all human and we have seen the corruption of power many times before in both secular and religious areas. After all, there is nothing new under the sun. (Ecc 1:9)

To me it seems a bad idea.


Let me ask it this way.

Consider these two examples.

(1) I try to live a Godly life and I proclaim the gospel to my neighbor and he accepts Christ and is saved and turns away from his sinful life.
(2) I am tired of my neighbor's sinful life. I tell him that I am going to beat him up until he accepts Christ and then I will beat him up again every time I think he sins. He is afraid of me and says he accepts Christ and he turns away from his sinful life out of fear of what I will do if I catch him.

Which of these examples is more pleasing to God?
Which is these examples is most like Christian Nationalism?

Following the constitution and bill of rights is best. It is these very historical conditions that Americans sought to stop. The problem is the idea of the separation of Church and state has been distorted in modern times and actually allows for the violation of the free exercise of religion in this country.
Restoring the original right to freedom to exercise religion in this country is all we need for Christian nationalism.

 

[eleos1954]

Christian Nationalism would result in many more people hearing about the Gospel of Jesus. The gospel would shine through every major institution, instead of being mostly hidden or mocked as it is today, at best an historical relic.

According to Evangelicals, nothing is more important than this mission to have more people one earth hear the Gospel.

The nation itself would be a kind of witness about the reality of Jesus Christ, in the same way that we worship individual liberty and the spirit of democracy today, as the ultimate goods of mankind.

So what do evangelicals say in response to this?

I suppose they may disagree with the methods that the Gospel is preached, but who are they to resist the methods as long as Jesus is being preached?

The former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. - Phillipians 1:17-18


This is where I see real tension between modern Christianity and the Gospel. There are idols in between them, idols that the leftwing and rightwing share. I always picture it as the Statue of Liberty holding the Cross. The idea is that they are not willing to sacrifice either of them, and give glory to both in a kind of syncretized secularized modern Christianity.

Christianity is a choice and must remain a choice. It is not to be forced.

We live in a time where its easy to get the gospel out due to modern technology. Some will respond .... some not.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

There will always be hypocrites using the church for their own power, no matter what political theology you have. So why not err on the side of greater exposure to the Gospel as we would undoubtedly find in an officially Christian nation.

Because you can be sure it will be some kind of mischaracterization of the Gospel with some unchristian emphases such as "prosperity Gospel" or something.

In fact I would like to ask right here, what are the main Gospel values you would like to see become national policy?.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The modern American Christian's faith is the USA, the bible is their constitution. Anything which violates the liberal principles enumerated in these things is what they oppose.

Christiana throughout most of history accepted it as natural that their political leaders would represent their faith and it's interests. The modern American Christian considers this evil for some reason.

Power can only be excercised for Non religious reasons, like invading countries to spread Liberal Democracy.

I am grateful however that there are more Christians these days willing to question their loyalty to anti Christian entities like the USA and who prefer their own interests as Christians first and foremost.

 

[Richard T]

Christian Nationalism would result in many more people hearing about the Gospel of Jesus. The gospel would shine through every major institution, instead of being mostly hidden or mocked as it is today, at best an historical relic.

According to Evangelicals, nothing is more important than this mission to have more people one earth hear the Gospel.

The nation itself would be a kind of witness about the reality of Jesus Christ, in the same way that we worship individual liberty and the spirit of democracy today, as the ultimate goods of mankind.

So what do evangelicals say in response to this?

I suppose they may disagree with the methods that the Gospel is preached, but who are they to resist the methods as long as Jesus is being preached?

The former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. - Phillipians 1:17-18


This is where I see real tension between modern Christianity and the Gospel. There are idols in between them, idols that the leftwing and rightwing share. I always picture it as the Statue of Liberty holding the Cross. The idea is that they are not willing to sacrifice either of them, and give glory to both in a kind of syncretized secularized modern Christianity.

The problem with Christian nationalism is what version would we get? What doctrine? The ones pushing this are mostly "kingdom now," "dominionist" or "third wave." Their ideas for the end times are off though I like their zeal. Whatever version though of Christianity there is, it will infringe on other Christians rights to the free exercise of religion.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I see Christian nationalism as operating on "natural law". The knowledge to know good and evil by nature. The law of the secular community to the religious on a basic human level . It operates on in this country. No matter their religion or lack thereof.
Looking to the good for all it's people. We also tend to this principal as universal in how we view other countries. Men know it naturally.
Our constitution and bill of rights is the original documents reflecting this.

Natural law relys on man's nature. We know man's nature is against the Spirit of God. Your analysis is in biblical error. This is why CN fourishes. The flesh is weak.

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Christian Nationalism is by definition the submission of the country to Jesus. Definitely not "country first"... It could not be more idolatrous than the current system... Secular idolatry of Americanism and liberal democracy is way more extreme and leads nobody to the Gospel. So why are Evangelicals so passionate about maintaining the current system?

There will always be hypocrites using the church for their own power, no matter what political theology you have. So why not err on the side of greater exposure to the Gospel as we would undoubtedly find in an officially Christian nation.

I suspect you are not well versed in the Christian Nationalist end game. Deception runs deep. Best to gian more knowledge and understanding of what His Kingdom is all about. You will quickly see how it has nothing to do with an earthly government.

My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”
- Jesus Christ of Nazareth

Blessings.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I suspect you are not well versed in the Christian Nationalist end game. Deception runs deep. Best to gian more knowledge and understanding of what His Kingdom is all about. You will quickly see how it has nothing to do with an earthly government.

My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”
- Jesus Christ of Nazareth

Blessings.

Why do you believe government should be devoid of all Christian influence?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

staff edit

So ban women wearing pants? That is a Gospel value for you?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

So ban women wearing pants? That is a Gospel value for you?

How about imposing severe penalties for blasphemy against your Lord and God?