Shouldn't all Evangelicals want Christian Nationalism?

[Laodicean60]

In a Christian political community, why can't said community punish blasphemy? Is freedom to blaspheme a Christian value?

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

Am I my country and it's foreign policy?

Are we? lol you want us to bring a change in our government and when comes to yours you give me a cop-out.

Where did I say I want you to be a Christian nationalist country?

Your statement above about having Christians in government to create laws against blasphemy gives me a hint. then you criticize the Christians in my country for not desiring.

Why do I have to persuade New Zealanders in order to speak to Americans about their own country and Christianity's relationship to politics?

In order to show yourself not being a hypocrite. We do have Christians in our government and we follow the laws and the constitution. Most Christians believe Jesus in love your neighbor and we don't take a militant stance on faith like some extreme Muslims do.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Are we? lol you want us to bring a change in our government and when comes to yours you give me a cop-out.

If you have changes that you'd make to New Zealand then tell me. I'm not above hearing said policy and I'll evaluate based on my political beliefs. It's hardly a cop out. You seem to think that because I live in New Zealand that I support it's government. I don't, be it National or Labour.

Your statement above about having Christians in government to create laws against blasphemy gives me a hint. then you criticize the Christians in my country for not desiring.

My statement was in relation to certain policies one could put in place if a country was genuinely Christian, be it my country or yours. It was intended to provoke a conversation further about what the nature of a Christian country would be like. In my view, a country which puts as it's highest value, God and the divine, would simply not tolerate blasphemy.

In order to show yourself not being a hypocrite. We do have Christians in our government and we follow the laws and the constitution. Most Christians believe Jesus in love your neighbor and we don't take a militant stance on faith like some extreme Muslims do.

You have Christians in your government who constrain themselves to the perceived norms of the country. They cannot act as Christians because this would violate the American political system. Joe Biden, who claims to be a faithful Democrat, supports Abortion, LGBT and a whole host of anti Christian social values. The Republicans, at least the establishment Romney types, put their Christianity to the side as well and are always ready to compromise with whatever the Left advocates for.

You're not selling me on your system from a Christian perspective. Are you trying to sell me Liberal Democracy? I see no value there.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

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 think the problem with Christian nationalism is that it goes against the principles taught in the New Testament and the Gospel. A country/nation submit to Jesus is the opposite of why Jesus came to the world. the world rejected Jesus, and anyone who follow Jesus, the world will reject them.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I think the problem with Christian nationalism is that it goes against the principles taught in the New Testament and the Gospel. A country/nation submit to Jesus is the opposite of why Jesus came to the world. the world rejected Jesus, and anyone who follow Jesus, the world will reject them.

Let me give you a hypothetical. Let's say there was a territory somewhere on earth. There were no nations on this territory yet it was filled with all kinds of different peoples. A group of these people are Christians and they gather together in Church and as a community. No one has laid claim to political headship over them. Is this group of Christians allowed to rule themselves as a Christian community?

 

[Laodicean60]

If you have changes that you'd make to New Zealand then tell me. I'm not above hearing said policy and I'll evaluate based on my political beliefs. It's hardly a cop out. You seem to think that because I live in New Zealand that I support it's government. I don't, be it National or Labour.

How about the same policies you preach to us for starters?

You have Christians in your government who constrain themselves to the perceived norms of the country. They cannot act as Christians because this would violate the American political system. Joe Biden, who claims to be a faithful Democrat, supports Abortion, LGBT and a whole host of anti Christian social values. The Republicans, at least the establishment Romney types, put their Christianity to the side as well and are always ready to compromise with whatever the Left advocates for.

And your country doesn't why hate America or do you hate your country also?

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Well you could do that if Christians had power. My question to you would be, in a Christian government would this be wrong? Would it also be wrong to want to advocate for such a form of government?

Forming a Christian government goes against New Testament teachings.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Let me give you a hypothetical. Let's say there was a territory somewhere on earth. There were no nations on this territory yet it was filled with all kinds of different peoples. A group of these people are Christians and they gather together in Church and as a community. No one has laid claim to political headship over them. Is this group of Christians allowed to rule themselves as a Christian community?

The Christian community is known as the Church or the Body of Christ. Anything outside this Body of Christ is referred to as the "World," which includes remote islands.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

In a Christian political community, why can't said community punish blasphemy? Is freedom to blaspheme a Christian value?

God established a nation, provided laws, and instituted punishments. He appointed leaders, judges, and eventually kings to govern the people and enforce these laws. Those who disobeyed were subjected to penalties. The name of the nation is Israel, and the law established by God is called the Old Covenant.

When the nation failed and laws couldn't bring righteousness, God sent His only son to die on the cross. Trying to enforce a nation and laws now to make people "Christian or righteous" disregards Jesus's sacrifice.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Forming a Christian government goes against New Testament teachings.

So Christians should not arbitrate disputes, seek justice and maintain order?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

How about the same policies you preach to us for starters?

What policies have I preached?

And your country doesn't why hate America or do you hate your country also?

I don't hate my country but I'm not especially fond of it. I wouldn't die for my country for instance. But I dont understand most of this sentence. Can you rephrase it?

 

[lismore]

I suppose that would be both our Ideal world. Yet I am talking about the world as it stands prior to the return of Christ. It seems you wish for Christians to be utterly powerless and subject to the whims of others.

Hello! Thanks for your reply, good that we're both looking forward to the return of the Lord

It's good when Christians are involved in politics and speak out with God's perspective on current affairs, believers should permeate society with salt and light. But I think the idea of a state church or a Christian Nation is a contradiction in terms, it's like saying wet dry, or North South. Believers are citizens of another Kingdom and by the bible's definition are a small minority in society as shown by the words of Jesus in Matthew 7:13-14. You cannot eat a meal composed only of salt, it's a pinch of salt for the seasoning, just as the believers are that pinch of salt in society. We should be active citizens for sure and speak up for righteousness and justice. This however is a distinct concept from what I take 'Christian Nationalism' to be.

So your contention is that Islam was a direct response to Christians gaining political power and being represented by states like the Roman Empire?

No it isn't.

But clearly there was a structural flaw in many Orthodox societies that made them very vulnerable to the encroachment of Islam, they fell like skittles and apostatized rapidly. Washington Irving in the Life of Mahommed explores this for the 7th century and other books explore why the Orthodox of Anatolia converted rapidly en masse to Islam in the 14th Century. Perfect examples of why 'Christian Nationalism' creates a rotten, flimsy structure that cannot stand a storm. It could not stand up to Islam.

Another interesting aside is Persia in the 5th Century. The Roman Empire and Persia were enemies. When a form of Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire academics note that it became harder for the formerly thriving Christian Communities of Persia to function and Evanglize, they were now seen as the enemy within.

So all Christian Nationalists are damned to hell?

'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved'.

Was he wrong to fight back against the Vikings and reestablish his hold on the Christian Kingdom of Wessex?

As far as I know, Anglo-Saxon society at that time was a mixture of Christian and Pagan and there was not at yet any compulsion or large scale persecution/ genocide of those who did not follow the state church. A country has a right to defend itself from attack, it does not have to follow 'Christian Nationalism' to defend itself. The United States is a secular Republic with freedom of religion and has a functioning army? Where Alfred would have been wrong, is if he persecuted his own citizens based on their religious beliefs, I don't know if he did that or not. 'Christian Nationalists' can fall into that trap and have done most readily. Another poster on this thread posted the example of Hypatia, a teacher in the 5th Century Alexandra who was skinned alive by church sponsored wolves who were never called to account for their murder. This is where 'Christian Nationalism' can tend to.

Where there is a 'Christian' government and it is clearly unjust, what good does that do to the reputation of the gospel?

A Christian polity is the organization of Christians as a political unit. It doesn't have to be perfect and to expect it to be perfect is stupid.

Perhaps a prayer group for Christian Members of Parliament to get together and pray and propose Godly legislation would be a good thing. I know many countries have them.

You cannot demonstrate how Christian Nationalism is bad from a Christian perspective.

I demonstrated that it doesn't exist. Jesus said only a few would find the narrow path to life. A few, a few, a few. When someone says all in a country are Christian because they've been cajoled or forced into it, then this 'Christian nationalism' is a chimera. We line that up against the words of Jesus 'only a few'. Many will say to Jesus on that day, 'did we not blah blah blah'. And he will say, away you workers of iniquity, I never knew you'.

Power here being political power. Christians currently do not have much power in this regard and the results speak for themselves. Do you believe that humans can act independently of political power and not be influenced by it?

God is sovereign. My God has all power on heaven and earth.

The answer to Islam is to share the gospel with Muslims. Jesus said go into all the world and share the gospel, many Muslims are coming to faith in Jesus Christ today. 'Wherever the gospel is preached there is fruit' (Colossians 1:5-6). Islam is a rotten structure of state-religion, of compulsion and forced conversion that is vulnerable to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

God Bless You

 

[lismore]

You seem to be doing a lot of mind reading about people who built cathedrals all over the continent. It seems like a lot of them actually did have faith.

How do things look today in the age of liberal democracy and modern Evangelism?



Most of us are also going to experience physical death on this earth. Is that reason to not exercise our duties and authorities now while we are alive? Should men not continue to act like men and women women? It's all going to pass away when Christ returns, so what's the point?

Just because earthly kingdoms will always fall far short of the heavenly kingdom, that does not excuse us from working for such a community on earth. Just as man is in the image of God, but not God, we should likewise build our city in the image of the heavenly city, with the full knowledge that our earthly city is temporal. A Christian Nation is evidence of faith and a bold witness.



You would have every former resident of that kingdom equipped with knowledge of the Gospel which would then continue to spread further.... What's the problem?



How do you know that people weren't that much closer to the reality of Christ because of how much it was officially promoted? These were times when the faith was growing and cathedrals were being built all across the world.

Can you honestly say that people are closer to God now in a modern liberal democracy? We are a materialistic nation of drug and p*rnography addicts.

Hello! I think we may have a different definition of what 'Christian Nationalism' is. I'm not sure I said having places of worship or being part of a community was bad. I think they're good.

Talking of pornography, that (together with Abortion and Same sex marriage) were legalized in this 'Christian Nation' when that lovely Christian head of State Queen Elizabeth was in post. She gave broadcasts about her faith, she ordered the acts permitting same sex marriage, abortion and pornography to be touched with the Royal sceptre, making them law. The abortion and same sex marriage acts were also proposed by 'Christian' members of parliament. If that doesn't show to you why 'Christian Nationalism' is suspect, we might have to agree to disagree. 'Christian Nationalism' can be used as vehicle of the enemy to muzzle the true gospel and bring in satanic acts by the back door.

Christians should have spoken out against these acts of unrighteousness, but the response of the church was muted, because 'Christians' were bringing in these evil laws in a 'Christian' country. The state church doesn't speak out against the state when it brings evil to the table, because it is part of the state. Where the true church is a remnant, it's sleek, agile and able to speak out for truth and righteousness, rather than the bloated, beached whale of 'Christian Nationalism'.

God Bless You, have a good day

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Hello! Thanks for your reply, good that we're both looking forward to the return of the Lord

It's good when Christians are involved in politics and speak out with God's perspective on current affairs, believers should permeate society with salt and light. But I think the idea of a state church or a Christian Nation is a contradiction in terms, it's like saying wet dry, or North South. Believers are citizens of another Kingdom and by the bible's definition are a small minority in society as shown by the words of Jesus in Matthew 7:13-14. You cannot eat a meal composed only of salt, it's a pinch of salt for the seasoning, just as the believers are that pinch of salt in society. We should be active citizens for sure and speak up for righteousness and justice. This however is a distinct concept from what I take 'Christian Nationalism' to be.

This is almost gnostic in it's separation of us as creatures from our identity as Christians. We could apply this logic to all sorts of interpersonal relations and it would erase commonly accepted notions of friends, kin, family, one's neighbour and spouses. For instance we have our father in heaven, therefore we owe our earthly fathers nothing and they are in fact not our real father. Or how about the true Church only being known to God therefore we shouldn't be part of an earthly visible community.

No it isn't.

But clearly there was a structural flaw in many Orthodox societies that made them very vulnerable to the encroachment of Islam, they fell like skittles and apostatized rapidly. Washington Irving in the Life of Mahommed explores this for the 7th century and other books explore why the Orthodox of Anatolia converted rapidly en masse to Islam in the 14th Century. Perfect examples of why 'Christian Nationalism' creates a rotten, flimsy structure that cannot stand a storm. It could not stand up to Islam.

Youre being anachronistic in applying Christian Nationalism to past Christian Kingdoms. If the entenching of Christianity in power was the reason why the Byzantines were weak then this would not explain how the Catholics were able to more successfully hold off Islam. Also take in mind that it was the Orthodox who held off Islam for hundreds of years while being attacked on two fronts. Latin attacks on East Rome did not help them survive and likely permanently crippled them.

Also the devout never apostatized and i bet they would have desired an Orthodox Christian King over their Islamic Sultan. Why is it wrong to desire that?

Another interesting aside is Persia in the 5th Century. The Roman Empire and Persia were enemies. When a form of Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire academics note that it became harder for the formerly thriving Christian Communities of Persia to function and Evanglize, they were now seen as the enemy within.

It also resulted in the repeal of Pagan morality in favour of Christian morality and norms in the East Roman Empire. Would you prefer the Greeks have remained Pagan?

'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved'.

And do Christian Nationalists not believe this?

As far as I know, Anglo-Saxon society at that time was a mixture of Christian and Pagan and there was not at yet any compulsion or large scale persecution/ genocide of those who did not follow the state church. A country has a right to defend itself from attack, it does not have to follow 'Christian Nationalism' to defend itself. The United States is a secular Republic with freedom of religion and has a functioning army? Where Alfred would have been wrong, is if he persecuted his own citizens based on their religious beliefs, I don't know if he did that or not. 'Christian Nationalists' can fall into that trap and have done most readily. Another poster on this thread posted the example of Hypatia, a teacher in the 5th Century Alexandra who was skinned alive by church sponsored wolves who were never called to account for their murder. This is where 'Christian Nationalism' can tend to.

Given that Alfred spared his enemies in the end it seems he was a great King of Christian virtue. What is your problem with him ruling as a Christian?

Where there is a 'Christian' government and it is clearly unjust, what good does that do to the reputation of the gospel?

Is it only Christian governments that are unjust or all governments?

Perhaps a prayer group for Christian Members of Parliament to get together and pray and propose Godly legislation would be a good thing. I know many countries have them.

Why should Christians be allowed to be part of Parliament? Don't you believe in the utter separation of true Christians from power?

I demonstrated that it doesn't exist. Jesus said only a few would find the narrow path to life. A few, a few, a few. When someone says all in a country are Christian because they've been cajoled or forced into it, then this 'Christian nationalism' is a chimera. We line that up against the words of Jesus 'only a few'. Many will say to Jesus on that day, 'did we not blah blah blah'. And he will say, away you workers of iniquity, I never knew you'.

Christian Nationalism as an ideology clearly exists.

God is sovereign. My God has all power on heaven and earth.

Well no. He has no power on Earth because hes handed it to Non Christians and you want to maintain that current status quo.

The answer to Islam is to share the gospel with Muslims. Jesus said go into all the world and share the gospel, many Muslims are coming to faith in Jesus Christ today. 'Wherever the gospel is preached there is fruit' (Colossians 1:5-6). Islam is a rotten structure of state-religion, of compulsion and forced conversion that is vulnerable to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

God Bless You

This is amusing. Christianity can't proselytize to Islamic countries and people because the doctrines of Islam do not permit it and where Muslims have power they will always kill or prosecute anyone who leads Muslims away from Islam.

It's not like Christians didn't try during the early centuries of Islam to convert them, but the structures of Islamic society and its devotion to Allah made it nearly impossible to break through.

Not all societies are as tolerant as ancient Rome was.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So what does a Christian prince look like? Does he look like God in any respect in seeking to express that Kingly aspect of the divine to his people or does he look like a mere man? Who is the King that inspires his people? Can Christians even be inspired by their leaders or are we going to believe in some sort of hyper protestant notion people cannot possibly be sources of inspiration?

The idea that an earthly prince should represent God comes across as Caesaropapism at best, and Paganism at worst. That's how Pagan societies operated, with kings functioning as divine intermediaries for the people.

No, a Christian prince doesn't look like God. But rather a prince who is a Christian.

I don't know what you mean when you talk about people being or not being sources of inspiration. Are you talking about being a virtuous person who inspires people through their conduct? I think a Christian prince very much ought to uphold virtue--humility, kindness, gentleness, self-control, love, etc. Because that is what is expected of the Christian regardless of their vocation.

A Christian prince will of course be faithful to Christ. The question is what does that faith look like. I suggest that faith is expressed in how he cares for the people God has put under him

That is certainly ideal. As far as what that faith looks like, it should look like Christian faith. All Christians are to live out their faith in their vocation. It doesn't matter whether they are a prince or a shoe-cobbler.

and he cannot act as a layman lest he abnegate the duty.

Christian princes are laymen.

He has the power of the sword for a reason, to impose justice.

That is part of the divinely ordained institution of human government. The use of the sword to curb evil. That is true regardless of whether the government calls itself Christian or something else, however. Again, Romans 13:1-7.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

So Christians should not arbitrate disputes, seek justice and maintain order?

As Christians, it is essential to pursue justice, peace, and uphold order. Therefore, every Christian should fulfill their civic duties by voting, running for office, working in government, serving in the military, or engaging in other public services. However, Christians should remember that this world is temporary, and our eternal resting place is in heaven. Human laws, even those based on Biblical principles, cannot bring true peace or justice, nor can they grant righteousness. Only by accepting Christ as our savior can these be attained.

While I am a devoted American patriot, my foremost identity is that of a Christian who deeply loves Jesus. Should there ever be a conflict between following Jesus and serving America, my loyalty will always lie with Jesus, and I hope my fellow Christians share this commitment. Jesus taught that one cannot serve two masters. Regrettably, my observations of Christian nationalism suggest an attempt to serve both Jesus and America, which fundamentally contradicts Jesus' teachings.

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

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

We have neither usage nor definition from God, of that word "Christian". Christ the Lord has refused to rule this world, and has asked all of His to not invest into it, but rather, to invest into the Kingdom of Heaven, which is no nation of this world..

 

[lifepsyop]

We have neither usage nor definition from God, of that word "Christian". Christ the Lord has refused to rule this world, and has asked all of His to not invest into it, but rather, to invest into the Kingdom of Heaven, which is no nation of this world..

It sounds good but there are big problems with your point of view.

One could make the same argument about not getting 'invested' in one's physical fleshly body, because that is only a temporal dying thing, waiting for a new eternal body. So, should we not take care of our bodies, and also govern from our stations and duties in this temporal world as regarding being a man or woman, elder of the community, etc. ?

As a Christian we do have many duties and responsibilities regarding what our society and communities look like and how they act.

A Christian nation is not an investment in the world, but a national witness, and a national ambassador of the kingdom of heaven. Not the true thing, but an image of it, as man is in the image of God.

As a result, the Gospel is heard more and spread more....

so I ask again, isn't this what Evangelicals claim to want more than anything?

Why all the debate over church/state/ceasarism... who cares? Isn't the only thing that matters is for more individuals to hear the Gospel?

 

[eleos1954]

Who defined America in the first place? You would define it in your original framing documents. For example, instead of recognizing the deistic 'Nature's god' in the Declaration of Independence, you would instead recognize Lord Jesus Christ as King over the nation and put it down in writing.

Freedom to choose (in religious matters) is our founding ... freedom to choose is most certainly biblical and the founders held to that principle as well even though some of them were deists.

Jesus is indeed sovereign over everything (He is the creator and sustainer of everything) ... nothing happens unless the Lord allows it ... He is in control ... but He allows freedom of choice of whom one worships. Worship is not to be a forced issue.

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

It sounds good but there are big problems with your point of view.

One could make the same argument about not getting 'invested' in one's physical fleshly body, because that is only a temporal dying thing, waiting for a new eternal body. So, should we not take care of our bodies, and also govern from our stations and duties in this temporal world as regarding being a man or woman, elder of the community, etc. ?

Bodies, yes. But Christ the Lord has refused to rule over people of this world. His very words matter first, and last, and most of all. His followers deny ourselves, our fleshly birthrights, our purposes of love of this world, in favor of that which He has said.

A Christian nation is not an investment in the world, but a national witness, and a national ambassador of the kingdom of heaven. Not the true thing, but an image of it, as man is in the image of God.

Christ the Lord has refused to rule over people of this world. His very words matter first, and last, and most of all. His followers deny ourselves, our fleshly birthrights, our purposes of love of this world, in favor of that which He has said.

As a result, the Gospel is heard more and spread more....

When nations of this world falsely arrogate the name of Christ to themselves, they deliver false gospel, not that which Christ the Lord has said, done, and discussed.

so I ask again, isn't this what Evangelicals claim to want more than anything?

"Evangelicals" are often national quasichristianists, who deliver falsehood instead of that which Christ the Lord said, did, and discussed.

Why all the debate over church/state/ceasarism... who cares? Isn't the only thing that matters is for more individuals to hear the Gospel?

That which matters, is that which Christ the Lord said, did, and discussed. Not national quasichristianism.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

As Christians, it is essential to pursue justice, peace, and uphold order. Therefore, every Christian should fulfill their civic duties by voting, running for office, working in government, serving in the military, or engaging in other public services. However, Christians should remember that this world is temporary, and our eternal resting place is in heaven. Human laws, even those based on Biblical principles, cannot bring true peace or justice, nor can they grant righteousness. Only by accepting Christ as our savior can these be attained.

Going back to my hypothetical I offered you, how would you apply these standards you have here in that particular circumstance? One where there is only a community of Christians who have gathered in agreement? Do you believe it is possible for Christians to participate in government independent of non-Christian authority?

While I am a devoted American patriot, my foremost identity is that of a Christian who deeply loves Jesus. Should there ever be a conflict between following Jesus and serving America, my loyalty will always lie with Jesus, and I hope my fellow Christians share this commitment. Jesus taught that one cannot serve two masters. Regrettably, my observations of Christian nationalism suggest an attempt to serve both Jesus and America, which fundamentally contradicts Jesus' teachings.

I'm confused. As an American Patriot, by definition you seek to serve your Nation, albeit with the caveat that your faith in Christ comes first. Why would a Christian Nationalist be unable to make the same distinction as you? There have been plenty of Christian governments and many people disobeyed the authority of said government because they thought it contradicted true teaching. Thomas More comes to mind.