Shouldn't all Evangelicals want Christian Nationalism?

[o_mlly]

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

I agree.

If we agree to define violence as the unjust use of force then such a definition implies that there are just uses of force.

As Christians, we are to turn the other cheek when violently attacked. If one accepts the teaching as applicable to individuals but not to the collective, then self-defense is a just use of force.

Imagine a two-state world -- one Christian and other Pagan. How long could the Christian state exist w/o defending itself against the violent attacks of the Pagan nation? Not long, I suspect. If God's instruments to convert the Pagans from their evil ways is vanquished then who will evangelize the Pagans?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes. Yet I never mentioned personal vendetta. Only that any Christian government would have to use violence and that this is perfectly normal. Do you understand?

The use of force by authorities really isn't an issue here. As Christians, we all know that legitimate government carries with it the use of possible force to maintain order.

So, does this mean that you and I are actually on the same page where Ethics and Philosophy of Law are of concern?

The point here is, I think, that Christians are not to resort to violence in the form of sedition, coups or other forms of general and historically citable rebellion.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The point here is, I think, that Christians are not to resort to violence in the form of sedition, coups or other forms of general and historically citable rerebellion.

In all cases without exception? Do you believe Christians, once subjects must remain subjects no matter what happens to them?

 

[RDKirk]

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.

"He who lives by the sword will die by the sword." That is the destiny of all earthly nations, whether they call themselves "Christian" or not. No unrighteousness has the favor of Jesus.

If the Church is no more righteous than any other nation, securing its existence by the sword--which is not the weapon of the Chuch's warfare-- then the Church has no gospel. That is not what He has called the Church to represent.

That's why the Lord's nation is not, cannot be a nation of this world.

In all cases without exception? Do you believe Christians, once subjects must remain subjects no matter what happens to them?

What are the scriptural examples? Where does scripture draw a limit?

 

[RDKirk]

I agree.

If we agree to define violence as the unjust use of force then such a definition implies that there are just uses of force.

As Christians, we are to turn the other cheek when violently attacked. If one accepts the teaching as applicable to individuals but not to the collective, then self-defense is a just use of force.

Imagine a two-state world -- one Christian and other Pagan. How long could the Christian state exist w/o defending itself against the violent attacks of the Pagan nation? Not long, I suspect. If God's instruments to convert the Pagans from their evil ways is vanquished then who will evangelize the Pagans?

It is entirely possible for the Church to carry out its mission even within the borders of a totally unjust state. Again: The Church in North Korea has grown 10X since the 1990s.

What the Church does appear to need, from my view, is a state of public order rather than chaos, and the Holy Spirit can operate even in a condition of oppressive order. A state that is "nice" to Christians is not a necessity for the Holy Spirit's mission...or for ours.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

"He who lives by the sword will die by the sword." That is the destiny of all earthly nations, whether they call themselves "Christian" or not. No unrighteousness has the favor of Jesus.

If the Church is no more righteous than any other nation, securing its existence by the sword--which is not the weapon of the Chuch's warfare-- then the Church has no gospel. That is not what He has called the Church to represent.

That's why the Lord's nation is not, cannot be a nation of this world.

What are the scriptural examples? Where does scripture draw a limit?

Interesting. You believe Christians are to be utterly subject to the powers at be and that no Christian ever has been called by God to weild power?

Do you think most of the Church was apostate for most of its history given its cooperation with power? Also given that all Christians are sinners and you demand perfection, has there ever been a legitimate Church on earth?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

It is entirely possible for the Church to carry out its mission even within the borders of a totally unjust state. Again: The Church in North Korea has grown 10X since the 1990s.

What the Church does appear to need, from my view, is a state of public order rather than chaos, and the Holy Spirit can operate even in a condition of oppressive order. A state that is "nice" to Christians is not a necessity for the Holy Spirit's mission...or for ours.

It's also possible that a Church gets wiped out by an unjust regime. You would tell said Christians to simply accept it and die.

 

[RDKirk]

It's also possible that a Church gets wiped out by an unjust regime. You would tell said Christians to simply accept it and die.

Do you have examples of that? There are unjust regimes that have tried really, really hard, such as the ancient Romans, the Chinese, the Japanese, the North Koreans...haven't succeeded yet.

Is your faith in the Christ that weak, that if you think we don't arm up and fight fire with fire that He'll lose?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Do you have examples of that? There are unjust regimes that have tried really, really hard, such as the ancient Romans, the Chinese, the Japanese, the North Koreans...haven't succeeded yet.

Is your faith in the Christ that weak, that if you think we don't arm up and fight fire with fire that He'll lose?

The Japanese did succeed in eliminating Christianity from their Islands. The Ottoman Turks succeeded in wiping out significant portions of Christian Armenians in the empire.

Let's also not forget about North African Christianity.

Tell me, do you have more of a problem with these people's if they fought back? Like I said, your only position is that when presented with violence and force, Christians must die.

 

[lifepsyop]

Is your faith in the Christ that weak, that if you think we don't arm up and fight fire with fire that He'll lose?

this is a problematic point of view, imo

not everything can be reduced to "Christ wins in the end, so don't worry about it"

even if it is true that Christ wins, we have still been charged with structuring and ordering our communities in the meantime. Otherwise there is no reason to protect the institute of marriage, or really care about anything except for raw evangelization... impulsively it sounds good, but that's not all of what the apostles instructed. They instructed a certain order to everything. Everything matters.

Christ is more than just a final destination for our souls. He is the whole of reality of being, and the apostles exhorted us to reflect that order while here on earth. That's why Paul and others talked so much about maintaining a certain order in the family and the community.

 

[RDKirk]

this is a problematic point of view, imo

not everything can be reduced to "Christ wins in the end, so don't worry about it"

even if it is true that Christ wins, we have still been charged with structuring and ordering our communities in the meantime. Otherwise there is no reason to protect the institute of marriage, or really care about anything except for raw evangelization... impulsively it sounds good, but that's not all of what the apostles instructed. They instructed a certain order to everything. Everything matters.

Christ is more than just a final destination for our souls. He is the whole of reality of being, and the apostles exhorted us to reflect that order while here on earth. That's why Paul and others talked so much about maintaining a certain order in the family and the community.

That is, within the Christian family and the Body of Christ. The earthly nations are not "our" communities. We are aliens and sojourners in these nations...1 Peter tells us this explicitly.

 

[o_mlly]

It is entirely possible for the Church to carry out its mission even within the borders of a totally unjust state. Again: The Church in North Korea has grown 10X since the 1990s.

What the Church does appear to need, from my view, is a state of public order rather than chaos, and the Holy Spirit can operate even in a condition of oppressive order. A state that is "nice" to Christians is not a necessity for the Holy Spirit's mission...or for ours.

Does "oppressive order" mean order for some and chaos for the oppressed?

Your post narrows the issue to just one of insurrection. Justifying force to oppose a sitting tyrant/dictator is a more complicated issue than opposing an external unjust foe.

If God wills it then what He wills is good. He works His will more often through His instruments ie., us, than by miracles.

Aquinas agrees:

And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Romans 13:4): "He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil"; so too, it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common weal against external enemies. Hence it is said to those who are in authority (Psalm 81:4): "Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner"; and for this reason Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 75): "The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority."​

SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: War (Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 40)

Is some kind of war lawful? Is it lawful for clerics to fight? Is it lawful for belligerents to lay ambushes? Is it lawful to fight on holy days?

www.newadvent.org

 

[RDKirk]

Does "oppressive order" mean order for some and chaos for the oppressed?

Your post narrows the issue to just one of insurrection. Justifying force to oppose a sitting tyrant/dictator is a more complicated issue than opposing an external unjust foe.

If God wills it then what He wills is good. He works His will more often through His instruments ie., us, than by miracles.

Aquinas agrees:

And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Romans 13:4): "He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil"; so too, it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common weal against external enemies. Hence it is said to those who are in authority (Psalm 81:4): "Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner"; and for this reason Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 75): "The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority."​

SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: War (Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 40)

Is some kind of war lawful? Is it lawful for clerics to fight? Is it lawful for belligerents to lay ambushes? Is it lawful to fight on holy days?

www.newadvent.org

Aquinas and Augustine were in the "king's chaplain" seat. They had to find a way to theologically justify acts of war the same way American churches in the South attempted to theologically justify American slavery.

 

[o_mlly]

Aquinas and Augustine were in the "king's chaplain" seat. They had to find a way to theologically justify acts of war the same way American churches in the South attempted to theologically justify American slavery.

No, comparing the two doctors of the Church to southern Baptists and Methodists will not fly.

Augustine was the Bishop of Hippo, a diocese in northern Africa. Aquinas residing as a Dominican friar and priest in Naples, Italy, wrote the Summa from 1265 to 1274; the year in which he died. Kindly offer some evidence that either man was a puppet to any political power or retract.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In all cases without exception? Do you believe Christians, once subjects must remain subjects no matter what happens to them?

... as history shows, I don't think there are any examples of "exception" of civil rebellion among Christians during the first 250 years of the faith to what I'm citing as established social norm by Jesus and His Apostles.

Do you know of any exceptions we should take as normative among Christians of the first 250 years by which we should employ sedition and rebellion?

 

[RDKirk]

No, comparing the two doctors of the Church to southern Baptists and Methodists will not fly.

Augustine was the Bishop of Hippo, a diocese in northern Africa. Aquinas residing as a Dominican friar and priest in Naples, Italy, wrote the Summa from 1265 to 1274; the year in which he died. Kindly offer some evidence that either man was a puppet to any political power or retract.

Both of them, and Augustine in particular, were apologists for the entanglement of the Church with the King.

 

[o_mlly]

Both of them, and Augustine in particular, were apologists for the entanglement of the Church with the King.

Restating your opinion is not evidence.

Our tradition strongly teaches that without a foundation defaming another is evil. I trust your tradition teaches the same on the evils of rash judgement, slander and calumny.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

... as history shows, I don't think there are any examples of "exception" of civil rebellion among Christians during the first 250 years of the faith to what I'm citing as established social norm by Jesus and His Apostles.

Do you know of any exceptions we should take as normative among Christians of the first 250 years by which we should employ sedition and rebellion?

There were no Christians after 300 AD? Do you believe the Armenians had no choice but to submit to genocide?

I don't have any issues with appealing to the earliest Christians as an example of how we ought to live, but so few Christians are actually prepared to live how they lived and do what they did. The early Christians were not compliant serfs, they did not submit their viewpoints about power to the dominant governing system as existed in Rome. Rome, to the earliest Christians was the enemy, one that should not be foolishly rebelled against (because that's suicide), but one that should be resisted as the community of the faithful grows. This doesn't mean that all situations and examples are like Rome and we saw what happened to Christians in certain contexts when they didn't have hard power. They were successfully repressed and became a minority or were destroyed utterly.

It's interesting to note the transition from Pagan Rome to Christian Rome. There was no theological movement which considered this Christian usurpation of power as illegitimate, rather it was simply assumed that this was natural and right. The early Christians recognized the dangers and that's why they actively introduced measures to keep a check on on themselves, such as monasteries and Saints were always acclaimed as the best among us. Yet they didn't insist that they had no right to rule, rather the opposite, that the Christian monarch had a duty to govern as a faithful servant.

If Christians then did become invested in their earthly communities and protecting them, it makes sense to me to not forbid Christians from rebellion on moral grounds, because I believe had some rebellions had been successful those communities of Christians would be stronger. Think the Coptics in Egypt, think the Greek revolts or the Serbian revolts or the Armenian revolts. Is the duty of Christians to simply submit to a regime? I'm not talking practically but from a moral perspective. Practically there is a good case to be made for simply submitting but we should never feel ourselves morally obliged to the support the established power simply because it is the established power. This is the attitude of slaves who don't believe they have any right to liberty or to rule themselves.

 

[didactics]

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.

If I'm not mistaken the phrase mostly came about by mainstream media which is mostly liberal. They would kind of use it as a synonym for white supremacy to give it a negative connotation. It's almost treated like a boogyman and something you don't want to be referred as-- A White Christian Nationalist
Some Christians have decided to own the label and attach positive meaning to it.
But I think the term Christian Nationalism has been used in the past, it's just that more recently it's been used as a term of derision.
But one definition is, an explicit ordering of civil law and an implicit ordering by social custom, together these compose the sort of thing Christian nationalism is. Stephen Wolfe, who wrote a book on it calls it a totality of national action, all things that a Christian nation would expect of us both in law and custom are for the good of the whole.

 

[lifepsyop]

That is, within the Christian family and the Body of Christ. The earthly nations are not "our" communities. We are aliens and sojourners in these nations...1 Peter tells us this explicitly.

The apostles were writing at a time when that was literally the case, because Christianity had just come into being.

Hypothetically speaking, if a large Body of Christ found themselves without a political nation (let's say the previous one collapsed under civil strife) then they would *have to* flock to join a pagan nation instead of forming their own nation under the submission of Jesus?

Where in scripture are Christians forbidden from forming their own?