Shouldn't all Evangelicals want Christian Nationalism?

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Never. I would want no part of such a church.

Here is a related anecdote. A number of years ago I got a new officemate. He knew I was a Christian very quickly, but it was many more months (perhaps more than a year) before he found out that I lean to the left politically. He seemed to be surprised. His response was to say, 'I thought I would need to become a Republican in order to consider Christianity.' Why did he think this? Because the loudest Christian voices in our country are attached to the Republican party.

Politics are already a barrier for some folks coming to know Christ. Do we really want to exacerbate that?

Politics is the completion of people's, friends and enemies for power. Do you believe one can avoid this reality and that if it is in a Church's interest to be political, they simply shouldn't? Are Christians to be above earthly attachments and relationships?

 

[RDKirk]

Paul did have influence because he wasn't constrained by modern Christian thinking which suggests Christians can't be involved in politics or power. He was willing to challenge established power, unlike most modern Christians who readily submit to it.

When did Paul "challenge established power?"...that is, the rule of the Roman Empire?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

When did Paul "challenge established power?"...that is, the rule of the Roman Empire?

He challenged it by undermining it's religion and the very ideology that Rome used to assert its authority. Modern Christians, especially if they are American, don't do this since they are loyal to the state. Paul never discouraged Roman Governers from the Gospel, nor did he say rulers were illegitimate. Just the opposite. All can be brought into the Gospel, that includes political leaders.

 

[okay]

So in otherwords the only non Christians who desire power should be allowed to grasp it? How then do Christians participate in politics if they aren't allowed to desire it? Especially since it is only those who desire power who tend to achieve power in democratic systems.

Nope. Do you really see no difference between a Christian politician wielding power as part of a secular government and a Christian nationalist? If not, then you should be thrilled with the US right now since we always end up with Christian presidents, and most other politicians are Christians as well.

 

[RDKirk]

He challenged it by undermining it's religion and the very ideology that Rome used to assert its authority. Modern Christians, especially if they are American, don't do this since they are loyal to the state. Paul never discouraged Roman Governers from the Gospel, nor did he say rulers were illegitimate. Just the opposite. All can be brought into the Gospel, that includes political leaders.

Okay, now you're talking in circles.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Nope. Do you really see no difference between a Christian politician wielding power as part of a secular government and a Christian nationalist? If not, then you should be thrilled with the US right now since we always end up with Christian presidents, and most other politicians are Christians as well.

No I don't see a difference because both will use violence, hard and soft power in order to implement their policies on the people. I do not give the moral highground to non Christian institutions automatically. Please demonstrate to me why a secular regime is inherently justified in it's use of violence versus a Christian regime.

I also doubt most politicians in the west are Christian. Their policies do not reflect Christianity.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Okay, now you're talking in circles.

No. I'm not. Let me ask you. Do you think God only calls Christians to be like Christ or Paul? He doesn't call any Christian to excercise power and authority in the political realm?

 

[lifepsyop]

Do you think Paul had no influence? Paul's influence was over those the Lord was calling to His Kingdom, not to an earthly kingdom.

Why did Paul care so much about structuring the order of earthly households and families here and now?

How many times does scripture have to tell you to be subject to human authority?

Are Christians not humans?

 

[okay]

No I don't see a difference because both will use violence, hard and soft power in order to implement their policies on the people.

I wasn’t just talking about violence. But if that is the topic we can stay there. A “Christian” nation commits violence in the name of Jesus. It is declaring to the world, “this is what Jesus is like” when it bombs a village. It is making a false Jesus.

 

[lifepsyop]

I wasn’t just talking about violence. But if that is the topic we can stay there. A “Christian” nation commits violence in the name of Jesus. It is declaring to the world, “this is what Jesus is like” when it bombs a village. It is making a false Jesus.

so who better to fairly consider the right and wrong of such policies than Christians? Aren't we supposed to be leading the world by moral example? it's better to pass those decisions off to secular degenerates?

that's been one of the big problems with the 'gospel of Liberal Democracy' that the US has been operating under since the beginning of the 20th century.... the belief that we need to go drop bombs on people and overthrow "authoritarian" rulers because they are standing in the way of blessed universal democracy and we need to liberate the people from those tyrants. (in reality of course just causing mass destabilization, destruction, and chaos for those people)

i think that is a healthy concern for you to have, and hopefully Christians would not follow in the path of Democrats and Neo-conservatives of bombing the world in order to bring it freedom.

but on the flipside of what you said... what does it say about a nation of millions of Christians today that allow degeneracy to run unabated throughout their society. Have you hit upon one of the real reasons we don't want Christian Nationalism? Because then we might actually be accountable for the environment we've cultivated for our children? No more could we just throw up our hands and say "ah well, the world is a sinful place, what'dya gonna do?" Maybe that's why we are so afraid of power and would rather be ruled by secular degenerates.

 

[okay]

that's been one of the big problems with the 'gospel of Liberal Democracy' that the US has been operating under since the beginning of the 20th century.... the belief that we need to go drop bombs on people and overthrow "authoritarian" rulers because they are standing in the way of blessed universal democracy and we need to liberate the people from those tyrants. (in reality of course just causing mass destabilization, destruction, and chaos for those people)

i think that is a healthy concern for you to have, and hopefully Christians would not follow in the path of Democrats and Neo-conservatives of bombing the world in order to bring it freedom.

I basically agree with you on this. The funny thing is, the Christian nationalists I know in the US have been in favor of all of our military exploits abroad; they see criticism of them as been disloyal (of course there are people of all stripes who think this way...). Just like they see any criticism of Trump as being disloyal and will even defend him bragging about sexually assaulting women. They are also the same people who buy the Trump Bible that has the constitution and other founding documents bound up along with scripture. These are the same bibles the state of Oklahoma was wanting to purchase (at $60 a pop so that Trump gets a nice cut) to force teachers to use in public school classrooms. I guess that way the children from non-Christian homes know that the constitution and the bible are on the same level? EDIT: crossed out the only modestly-related rant...

But my concerns apply exactly the same to domestic affairs. In a 'christian' nation, every time there is an episode of police brutality it is done in the name of Jesus. Every government program that has terrible consequences (either intended or unintended) carries the face of Jesus. Every time a school breakfast program that feeds poor kids is cut, it is done in the name of Jesus. Every time a freedom is taken away it is done in the name of Jesus.
And the whole point of a 'christian' nation is to use the power of government force all citizens to at least appear to abide by the particular beliefs of the particular sect who is in power. So they can have laws against blasphemy, idolatry, heresy. And those laws will be idiosyncratic to the sect in charge. They cannot be universal since Christianity is just too broad - just look at the discussions here on CF if you don't agree. How long will it be before such a government it is doing the equivalent of the Puritans cutting off ears or boring holes in the tongues of Quakers because their beliefs are deemed blasphemous? I believe it is inevitable. And it will all be done in the name of Jesus.

 

[Solo81]

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.

I had to search what this "Christian Nationalism" is, for I have never heard the term before.
Looks like it's a recent invention - 98% of references on Wiki are from the last 2yrs.

 

[okay]

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?

So the ends justify the means….

I bet if we went back to conversion by the sword it would be quite effective. Jesus would be preached, so we should not resist this method either, right?

 

[lifepsyop]

But my concerns apply exactly the same to domestic affairs. In a 'christian' nation, every time there is an episode of police brutality it is done in the name of Jesus. Every government program that has terrible consequences (either intended or unintended) carries the face of Jesus. Every time a school breakfast program that feeds poor kids is cut, it is done in the name of Jesus. Every time a freedom is taken away it is done in the name of Jesus.

You could use the same argument against having churches. What if there are cases of corruption among the leadership? Every instance would be done in the name of Jesus. Maybe safer to not have churches at all?

I'm being facetious there, but hope you see the point. The inevitability of humanity's fallen nature can't be used as an excuse to surrender all power and influence.

And the whole point of a 'christian' nation is to use the power of government force all citizens to at least appear to abide by the particular beliefs of the particular sect who is in power. So they can have laws against blasphemy, idolatry, heresy. And those laws will be idiosyncratic to the sect in charge. They cannot be universal since Christianity is just too broad - just look at the discussions here on CF if you don't agree. How long will it be before such a government it is doing the equivalent of the Puritans cutting off ears or boring holes in the tongues of Quakers because their beliefs are deemed blasphemous? I believe it is inevitable. And it will all be done in the name of Jesus.

Sure that is a valid concern, but what is the alternative? Surrendering your children to the degenerate whims of a secular state?

The apostles were dealing with this same struggle even in the first century... keeping people on the straight path, and pulling them back from disorderly excesses, e.g. forbidding eating certain meats, etc.

That will always be our struggle here on earth, and we will always be making mistakes... and arguably the greatest mistake Christianity ever made was allowing secular liberalism to replace it as the guiding moral framework of the nation.

I posed this same question earlier... if the average Christian in the 18th century saw the kinds of things that would be promoted and done to children in the 21st century, do you think they might have decided that whatever amounts of religious intolerance were happening at the time, actually wasn't all that bad, relatively speaking.

(Like a similar question... do you think any soldiers from America or Britain would have fought in WW2 if they could see what "Victory" was going to do to the world their grandchildren would grow up in?)

 

[okay]

I posed this same question earlier... if the average Christian in the 18th century saw the kinds of things that would be promoted and done to children in the 21st century, do you think they might have decided that whatever amounts of religious intolerance were happening at the time, actually wasn't all that bad, relatively speaking

The average Christian in my country at that time probably supported slavery. Of children.

 

[RDKirk]

so who better to fairly consider the right and wrong of such policies than Christians? Aren't we supposed to be leading the world by moral example? it's better to pass those decisions off to secular degenerates?

There is no righteousness to those policies. Yes, in this fallen world of tooth and claw it is necessary to do unrighteous things in order to maintain national power, but it is not the place of the Church to cheer on unrighteous acts, much less directly engineer them.

These earthly nations, like Babylon, like Persia, like Rome, like England, like the United States have their time and place as temporary tools of God, useful for their time to the benefit of believers, but all doomed to destruction when Jesus returns. The unrighteous acts each of them must commit in this fallen world condemn them.

The Church is to be in this world, not of this world. Scripture characterizes us as ambassadors in these nations, not as an earthly nation unto ourselves. The temptation for the Church to create its own earthly nation is a temptation of Satan that Jesus firmly denied. He denied it in the wilderness, He denied it when his own disciples suggested it, He denied it again at the cross.

Why are we entertaining that temptation?

 

[okay]

You could use the same argument against having churches. What if there are cases of corruption among the leadership? Every instance would be done in the name of Jesus. Maybe safer to not have churches at all?

That is a false equivalence.

Nations are required to act in non-Christian ways if they are to exist for any length of time. Churches are not.

We are called to be the Church, and scripture shows us examples of what that looks like. Scripture does not say we are called to take control of the government - in fact Jesus actively resists that approach.

RDKirk expressed this way better than I ever could.

These earthly nations, like Babylon, like Persia, like Rome, like England, like the United States have their time and place as temporary tools of God, useful for their time to the benefit of believers, but all doomed to destruction when Jesus returns. The unrighteous acts each of them must commit in this fallen world condemn them.

The Church is to be in this world, not of this world. Scripture characterizes us as ambassadors in these nations, not as an earthly nation unto ourselves. The temptation for the Church to create its own earthly nation is a temptation of Satan that Jesus firmly denied. He denied it in the wilderness, He denied it when his own disciples suggested it, He denied it again at the cross.

Why are we entertaining that temptation?

 

[lifepsyop]

The average Christian in my country at that time probably supported slavery. Of children.

The average Christian today tolerates the mass execution of children in the womb. Have we really progressed?

 

[lifepsyop]

There is no righteousness to those policies.

America's present-day foreign policy? You're preaching to the choir there.

Yes, in this fallen world of tooth and claw it is necessary to do unrighteous things in order to maintain national power,

Is Power itself unrighteous? Is the government's power to bring the sword against the evil-doer unrighteous? I don't get that sense from the apostles' writings.

but it is not the place of the Church to cheer on unrighteous acts, much less directly engineer them.

99% of the churchgoers I know would say enthusiastically that we righteously vanquished a pure evil in World War 2, and that ultimately the secular state waged a righteous war of good vs. evil. So it doesn't seem like the problem you're outlining is linked particularly to Christian Nationalism...

These earthly nations, like Babylon, like Persia, like Rome, like England, like the United States have their time and place as temporary tools of God, useful for their time to the benefit of believers, but all doomed to destruction when Jesus returns. The unrighteous acts each of them must commit in this fallen world condemn them.

Not much disagreement there. But this isn't an argument against Christian Nationalism... A Christian Nation would by definition recognize its temporality, serving temporarily as Christ's ambassador until the end of time.

The same way we recognize that our earthly families are still in the temporary fallen flesh, and yet the apostles exhort us to structure and order them according to a Godly hierarchy.

The Church is to be in this world, not of this world. Scripture characterizes us as ambassadors in these nations, not as an earthly nation unto ourselves.

I think that's what Christian Nationalism actually is. It is a nation of Christians who recognize that they are ambassadors of heaven, trying to order their societies accordingly while still on the earth, but recognizing the true authority is not of this earth.

The temptation for the Church to create its own earthly nation is a temptation of Satan that Jesus firmly denied. He denied it in the wilderness, He denied it when his own disciples suggested it, He denied it again at the cross.

Why are we entertaining that temptation?

A Christian nation would be, by definition, a nation submitted to the authority of Jesus in heaven.

Jesus also used physical force and power against corrupt religious leaders. Do you agree that we should follow his example here as well?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I wasn’t just talking about violence. But if that is the topic we can stay there. A “Christian” nation commits violence in the name of Jesus. It is declaring to the world, “this is what Jesus is like” when it bombs a village. It is making a false Jesus.

A Christian nation does violence out of necessity more often than not. It's not that all violence the Christian nation does is in the name of Jesus, but rather because it is in the nature of nations and people to do this kind of violence.

I would hope any Christian nation going forward doesn't do what your USA does and invade all over the world for ideological reasons in order to spread its regime further but power is attractive and Empires tend to want to grow.

Should the Christian nation be unwilling to use violence it will be ineffective domestically and abroad.