Shouldn't all Evangelicals want Christian Nationalism?

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Finally, Wolfe sees the need for a Christian nation to be led by a civil magistrate whom he calls the “Christian prince.” The prince is not merely a good leader or a capable administrator or even a pious Christian. He serves as a source of national pride and inspiration. Wolfe describes him in these terms:


“Having the highest office on earth, the good prince resembles God to the people. Indeed, he is the closest image of God on earth. This divine presence in the prince speaks to his role beyond civil administration. Through him, as the mediator of divine rule, the prince brings God near to the people. The prince is a sort of national god, not in the sense of being divine himself, or in materially transcending common humanity, or as an object of prayer or spiritual worship, or as a means of salvific grace, but as the mediator of divine rule for this nation and as one with divinely granted power to direct them in their national completeness.” (p. 287-288)

Of Gods and Men: A Long Review of Wolfe’s Case for Christian Nationalism, Part I – Book Summary

This is Part I of a four-part review (see also Part II, Part III, Part IV) of Stephen Wolfe’s Case for Christian Nationalism. Introduction Since the events of Jan. 6th, 2021, when protestors …

shenviapologetics.com

I don't know anything about Wolfe's book so I looked it up. This is a tiny portion of an in-depth review of his book.
I think that this small quote from Wolfe's book is some of what I have heard about Christian Nationalism's advocates.

This sort of view is well within the bounds of historical Christianity mind you. That the Christian prince should represent God to his people. Do you think past Christians were wrong?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Finally, Wolfe sees the need for a Christian nation to be led by a civil magistrate whom he calls the “Christian prince.” The prince is not merely a good leader or a capable administrator or even a pious Christian. He serves as a source of national pride and inspiration. Wolfe describes him in these terms:


“Having the highest office on earth, the good prince resembles God to the people. Indeed, he is the closest image of God on earth. This divine presence in the prince speaks to his role beyond civil administration. Through him, as the mediator of divine rule, the prince brings God near to the people. The prince is a sort of national god, not in the sense of being divine himself, or in materially transcending common humanity, or as an object of prayer or spiritual worship, or as a means of salvific grace, but as the mediator of divine rule for this nation and as one with divinely granted power to direct them in their national completeness.” (p. 287-288)

Of Gods and Men: A Long Review of Wolfe’s Case for Christian Nationalism, Part I – Book Summary

This is Part I of a four-part review (see also Part II, Part III, Part IV) of Stephen Wolfe’s Case for Christian Nationalism. Introduction Since the events of Jan. 6th, 2021, when protestors …

shenviapologetics.com

I don't know anything about Wolfe's book so I looked it up. This is a tiny portion of an in-depth review of his book.
I think that this small quote from Wolfe's book is some of what I have heard about Christian Nationalism's advocates.

That's fairly good blueprint for the Antichrist.

I'll also leave this here: Caesaropapism - Wikipedia

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Hank77]

I have no valuable opinions to share. I'm more of a researcher. I try to add facts and answer questions with facts. That's how I occasionally contribute to some discussions.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

That's fairly good blueprint for the Antichrist.

I'll also leave this here: Caesaropapism - Wikipedia

-CryptoLutheran

Were all Christian princes Anti Christ in your view of things Crucis?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Were all Christian princes Anti Christ in your view of things Crucis?

Nope.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Nope.

-CryptoLutheran

Were the best ones who embodied God towards their subjects?

 

[Laodicean60]

Nope.

I know you have negativity toward America's politics but to dictate what we should and should not do and your country does the same is being a hypocrite. I suggest you rise with the Christian leaders in your country and become a Christian nationalist country and if it works more will follow. Our constitution and our diverse population won't won't allow that garbage.

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

The Constitution of the USA and its diverse population, allowed enormous quantities of very much nonpreferred behavior, until its quasichristian nationalism began to be reduced in the early 1900's, until after the church-authorities lost most of their power. Political church-power encouraged chattel slavery in the south, encouraged Theodore Roosevelt who publicly advocated for the mass murder of all native Americans, produced "missions" to the native American reservations that are well-known for trying to cut children off from their parents, and harbored the Ku Klux Klan within churches in the south later on. One simple way to see it, is that the Indian wars, and the reforms preventing children from being made into wage-slaves, only occurred after women got the vote, and women got the vote very much against the teachings of powerful churches.

There is much great and terrible reason to keep political power out of churches. The first of them fairly well-known are the legacies of Constantine and John Chrysostum, though the latter is often overlooked. Another is the English civil war. There are far more available.

I thank the Lord, that He has progressively denied political power to national quasichristianists for a few hundred years now. The next steps after this may well be quite terrible, given that which He has said, but for the sake of His missions in this world, I shall celebrate this, and shall pray that He keeps on in this way.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Interesting. Do you oppose all violent revolution? As an American, revolution is part of your founding so i dont know how you could be against it. Also, the justification for violent revolution is not the same as advocating for it at present.

Essentially, yes. I oppose violent revolution, and no one in the U.S. is required to ideologically support the idea of political revolution simply because it was a part of our national founding.

If anything, the only sort of revolution I support is the kind that Copernicus helped to push forward.

 

[CoreyD]

@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.

Would it?
It's hard to imagine that the home of one of the world's most revered religious leaders, Pope Francis, is also a hotbed of criminal activity. But the crime data on this place is shocking, to say the least. In recent history, the precise number has fluctuated from 1 to 1.5 crimes per person each year. But this statistic only tells part of the story.

So how did Vatican City end up with one of the world's highest crime rates per capita?

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.

The idea is indeed nice.
The problem is with the denomination.

If the "law" is one law, which everyone must live by, that would work, because anyone breaking the law would be excommunicated. 1 Corinthians 5:9-13

If though, the community has various "laws", due to the fact that there is no central head, and persons are free to decide their own "rules", there will be problems.

How would Quakers deal with splits, for example?
Splits

Around the time of the American Revolutionary War, some American Quakers split from the main Society of Friends over issues such as support for the war, forming groups such as the Free Quakers and the Universal Friends. Later, in the 19th century, there was a diversification of theological beliefs in the Religious Society of Friends, and this led to several larger splits within the movement.​

You would need to be able to identify the group that are "together", in order to ensure peace. Otherwise, you could end up with more division, leading to not only problems within, but the public would not feel too inclined to become part of the schisms, and confusion, leading to questions such as, Who is right? Whom should I join?

Right now, these are already headaches for many people, with the xx,000 denominations in the world.

I like the Quakers position on Conscientious objection.

 

[jas3]

There is much great and terrible reason to keep political power out of churches. The first of them fairly well-known are the legacies of Constantine and John Chrysostum, though the latter is often overlooked.

What are you talking about?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Were the best ones who embodied God towards their subjects?

Princes don't embody God. The best ones were the ones who knew right and wrong, and acted accordingly, not acting as a tyrant but as a protector and guardian of the people against tyranny and oppression through lawful judgment and just rule.

There is one Mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ. The way that God is present to and among His people is through the Means of Grace, Word and Sacrament. Pastors, not princes, as the undershepherds of Christ the one Good Shepherd exercise the Sacred Office and Ministry of the Keys through the preaching of the Word and the administering of the Sacraments therefore, in their sacred calling, speak and act in persona Christi for the benefit of the Faithful--since it is Christ's Word and Christ's Sacraments, it is Christ who speaks and Christ who works.

The role of the State is to safeguard the welfare of the people, curb evil, and ensure the potential of human flourishing. Which is why the stately powers are to be respected and honored as the institution of God viz-a-viz Romans 13:1-7. The State and the Church are two separate institutions; one bears the execution of the Law through the secular and civil sphere to curb evil and protect the welfare of human beings; the other bears the Ministry of God's Word and Sacraments through which Christ is Lord over all.

The State remains the institution of God regardless of whether it is heathen, Christian, or some other thing; as St. Paul speaks of the Roman State under Nero in his inspired epistle to the Church in Rome. So the State, whether ruled by a Christian prince or by a heathen emperor or by a Muslim caliph, or by a secular president, is the institution of God by which the civil and secular sphere are to be governed for the good ordering of human society.

"This entire topic concerning the distinction between the kingdom of Christ and a political kingdom has been explained to advantage [to the remarkably great consolation of many consciences] in the literature of our writers, [namely] that the kingdom of Christ is spiritual [inasmuch as Christ governs by the Word and by preaching], to wit, beginning in the heart the knowledge of God, the fear of God and faith, eternal righteousness, and eternal life; meanwhile it permits us outwardly to use legitimate political ordinances of every nation in which we live, just as it permits us to use medicine or the art of building, or food, drink, air. Neither does the Gospel bring new laws concerning the civil state, but commands that we obey present laws, whether they have been framed by heathen or by others, and that in this obedience we should exercise love. For Carlstadt was insane in imposing upon us the judicial laws of Moses." - Defense of the Augsburg Confession, Article XVI, Book of Concord

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

The State and the Church are two separate institutions; one bears the execution of the Law through the secular and civil sphere to curb evil and protect the welfare of human beings; the other bears the Ministry of God's Word and Sacraments through which Christ is Lord over all.

Of course it gets sticky when a particular group wants to enact secular civil laws it sees aligned with its own discernment of God's laws as reveled in scripture. Again this is why I think more discussion needs to be had regarding hermeneutics, how we interpret scripture and the events and environment of our current time. Christian Nationalists have a very specific and I think eccentric hermeneutic. We can all agree on some values and even more virtues that we would like become norm. But exactly how and why, we differ.

 

[lifepsyop]

The Declaration of Independence rendered the 13 colonies independent of the British Crown. There certainly were loyalists who didn't want independence--but the result was an independent country.

If you are going to compare that with a declaration of national submission to Jesus, I'd expect there to be some kind of net effect. If it won't make anyone a Christian, then what's the point?

The point is that the Gospel of Jesus, being officially promoted by the nation, is more widely known and proclaimed at home and around the world.

Isn't that what Evangelicals want?

Imagine if all our public civics classes prattling on about how sacred democracy is were instead proclaiming the salvation by the Cross of Christ?

 

[ViaCrucis]

The point is that the Gospel of Jesus, being officially promoted by the nation, is more widely known and proclaimed at home and around the world.

Isn't that what Evangelicals want?

Imagine if all our public civics classes prattling on about how sacred democracy is were instead proclaiming the salvation by the Cross of Christ?

To whom did Christ give the Keys of the Kingdom, to the Church or to the State?

As I'm not an "Evangelical", at least as popularly defined in America (however see here), I'm not part of the target audience of your thread since you are talking to a specific sub-group of American Protestants.

But as a Lutheran I believe in a clear distinction between State and Church, as taught in Holy Scripture and expressed in the Lutheran Confessions. It is not for the State to preach the Word, but for the Church. Christ gave the Keys to His Church, saying, "Whoever's sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whoever's sins you retain are retained." The exercising of this Holy and Sacred Office is exercised by those called and ordained by the Church--for only the Church has the authority to call and ordain her ministers--e.g. pastors. It is the role of the State to exercise the principles of fair and just governance, and--when necessary--bear the sword against wrongdoing; and the Christian is called, such as by the Holy Apostle in Romans 13:1-7, to honor such governance as the institution of God for the good ordering of society.

It is not magistrates who preach the Word and administer Christ's Holy Sacraments, but those called and ordained by the Church to exercise the Sacred Ministry instituted and ordained by Christ viz-a-viz Matthew 16:19, Matthew 18:18, and John 20:21-23.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I know you have negativity toward America's politics but to dictate what we should and should not do and your country does the same is being a hypocrite. I suggest you rise with the Christian leaders in your country and become a Christian nationalist country and if it works more will follow. Our constitution and our diverse population won't won't allow that garbage.

Do Americans have any right to claim that their politics is their own when they are effectively a global Empire which pushes and influences other countries with it's power and cultural influence? You aren't merely a country that wants to be left alone, you have military bases and alliances all over the globe and have invaded smaller and weaker countries in order to accomplish regime change. So when someone criticizes the USA and US Americans you suddenly get offended? Why?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Essentially, yes. I oppose violent revolution, and no one in the U.S. is required to ideologically support the idea of political revolution simply because it was a part of our national founding.

Do you support the USA? If you support the country you must support the foundation. If violent revolution was a legitimate means of establishing the current USA, why wouldn't a violent revolution against the current USA be legitimate? Your founders established the precedent, violent revolution is legitimate in the USA, it just depends on if it's successful.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do you support the USA? If you support the country you must support the foundation. If violent revolution was a legitimate means of establishing the current USA, why wouldn't a violent revolution against the current USA be legitimate? Your founders established the precedent, violent revolution is legitimate in the USA, it just depends on if it's successful.

Of course I support my own nation. I'm a patriot, but that's not the same as being a nationalist or even a Christian nationalist. Moreover, even if my country was formed via a revolution, there was a mix of positions among the colonists of that time--- many of whom were Christians from different denominations ---regarding the American Revolution. On top of that, it doesn't follow (as in: it's a bona-fide Non-Sequitur ) that whatever a country was founded upon, a citizen HAS to support.

You're also committing the Fallacy of Composition in attributing that the idea of Revolution extends to all aspects of politics life, at whatever level, simply because the founding fathers led the international revolution against Britain. You need to think this through (and maybe get yourself a good book on Logic, and maybe a good book on American History and U.S. Government).

All that the American Revolution really establishes is that the U.S. will respond internationally (as it still does) against aggressor nations if attacked by those other nations.

So no, no U.S. citizen has to support the ideological position of Revolution, especially in, within or upon one's fellow countrymen. I'm rather take aback that you'd even suggest such a thing, Ignatius.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Of course I support my own nation. I'm a patriot, but that's not the same as being a nationalist or even a Christian nationalist. Moreover, even if my country was formed via a revolution, there was a mix of positions among the colonists of that time regarding the American Revolution. On top of that, it doesn't follow (as in: it's a bona-fide Non-Sequitur to say that whatever a country was founded upon, a citizen HAS to support that.

If you a for the USA as a concept then how can you detach yourself from it's violent and bloody beginning? It's hardly a non-sequitur, instead you're trying to create an exception for your preferred political system and deny others the right to determine their destiny. If violent revolution is justified in the one instance, why is it unjustified in the other instance? It cannot be because violent revolution is inherently bad then but because the reasons for revolution are insufficient.

You're also committing the Fallacy of Composition in attributing that the idea of Revolution extends to all aspects of politics life, at whatever level, simply because the founding fathers led the international revolution against Britain. You need to think this through (and maybe get yourself a good book on Logic, and maybe a good book on American History and U.S. Government). All that the American Revolution really establishes is that the U.S. will respond internationally (as it still does) against aggressor nations if attacked by those other nations.

Except it was the founders of the USA who were the aggressors against the established political authority in the 13 colonies. Much in the same way if any state were to secede from the USA today it would be considered an act of aggression. You're reinterpreting the history in order to justify your country when it is not warranted. You either support violent revolution which established your country or you don't. Carving out political exceptions is unconvincing.

So no, no U.S. citizen has to support the ideological position of Revolution, especially in, within or upon one's fellow countrymen.

But you support the USA. Would you have supported the King of the Founders of your country at the time of the revolution?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Princes don't embody God. The best ones were the ones who knew right and wrong, and acted accordingly, not acting as a tyrant but as a protector and guardian of the people against tyranny and oppression through lawful judgment and just rule.

There is one Mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ. The way that God is present to and among His people is through the Means of Grace, Word and Sacrament. Pastors, not princes, as the undershepherds of Christ the one Good Shepherd exercise the Sacred Office and Ministry of the Keys through the preaching of the Word and the administering of the Sacraments therefore, in their sacred calling, speak and act in persona Christi for the benefit of the Faithful--since it is Christ's Word and Christ's Sacraments, it is Christ who speaks and Christ who works.

The role of the State is to safeguard the welfare of the people, curb evil, and ensure the potential of human flourishing. Which is why the stately powers are to be respected and honored as the institution of God viz-a-viz Romans 13:1-7. The State and the Church are two separate institutions; one bears the execution of the Law through the secular and civil sphere to curb evil and protect the welfare of human beings; the other bears the Ministry of God's Word and Sacraments through which Christ is Lord over all.

The State remains the institution of God regardless of whether it is heathen, Christian, or some other thing; as St. Paul speaks of the Roman State under Nero in his inspired epistle to the Church in Rome. So the State, whether ruled by a Christian prince or by a heathen emperor or by a Muslim caliph, or by a secular president, is the institution of God by which the civil and secular sphere are to be governed for the good ordering of human society.

"This entire topic concerning the distinction between the kingdom of Christ and a political kingdom has been explained to advantage [to the remarkably great consolation of many consciences] in the literature of our writers, [namely] that the kingdom of Christ is spiritual [inasmuch as Christ governs by the Word and by preaching], to wit, beginning in the heart the knowledge of God, the fear of God and faith, eternal righteousness, and eternal life; meanwhile it permits us outwardly to use legitimate political ordinances of every nation in which we live, just as it permits us to use medicine or the art of building, or food, drink, air. Neither does the Gospel bring new laws concerning the civil state, but commands that we obey present laws, whether they have been framed by heathen or by others, and that in this obedience we should exercise love. For Carlstadt was insane in imposing upon us the judicial laws of Moses." - Defense of the Augsburg Confession, Article XVI, Book of Concord

-CryptoLutheran

So the Christian Prince is no different from the Non-Christian prince?