Musings on the movement of Christian Nationalism, a Base-coat

“The explicit absence of God in public life is now normal, and this new normal hardly needs official enforcement. With weakness of will and self-abnegation, Western Christians gaze at the ravishment of their Western heritage, either blaming themselves or, even worse, reveling in their humiliation. Christians today live in and fully embrace the conditions of deicide. We have not simply tied our own hands; we’ve handed over, without much fuss, the divine powers ordained for our good. The people of God have become accustomed to a life without them, even learning to love abuse from God-granted authorities that he ordained for their good.”¹ –Stephen Wolfe, The Case for Christian Nationalism

“As always, a war is being waged against the truth. We are on one side or the other. There is no middle ground—no safe zone for the uncommitted… We also happen to be living in a generation when many so-called Christians have no taste for conflict and contention. Multitudes of biblically and doctrinally malnourished Christians have come to think of controversy as something that should always be avoided, whatever the cost. Sadly, that is what many weak pastors have modeled for them.”² –John MacArthur, The Truth War

INTRODUCTION:

“...and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch” (Acts 11.26; NASB).

Let us try to imagine for a moment, if we can, what it would have been like to be the first ones addressed as Christians in the first century. They had been previously called followers “of the way” (Acts 9.2) by those that were their chief antagonists and persecutors, but now—a few years later—another title has been given to them. Now, I can imagine that many of us have shared in being called this or that throughout our youth. Making fun, or making light of our neighbors is a practice pursued by the unrighteous, and this endeavor begins at a very young age. To be called a Christian is a badge of honor today, but it does not appear that this was was always the case. Evidently, it was first coined by those that hated our movement; the devotion we share in Jesus of Nazareth, our Savior, our King, our mighty God!³

To demean, to mock, to vilify, to provide a caricature that would give pause to anyone associated with the movement. We must not forget that the sages of Athens were energized at the foolishness of claiming that the one Paul served, and called all others to serve, was the resurrected Christ (Acts 17.18, 31-32). In 1 Corinthians he notes that the gospel of our Christ is seen as a fools’ doctrine to be rejected rather than embraced:

“For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified [i.e., the resurrected Lord], to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness” (1 Cor 1.22-23; cf. v. 18).”

Ad hominen argumentation has always been an effective rhetorical tool in steering others from a specific person or a movement where individuals might be attracted. This is precisely the effort being exercised by those that believe that Christian Nationalism is something that should be avoided. The moniker is meant to deter others from adhering to it or appearing to be a member of the movement. The idea is to put the person or people involved in a negative light; to make them look like radicals that need to be avoided. Like a scare quote, this scare phrase “Christian Nationalism” is used to silence opposition and discourage any possible adherents. However, Gary North notes the needed antithesis,

“What we need is the will to resist. What we also need is a will to remove those from power over us who do not possess the will to resist, and whose very ‘let’s make a deal’ philosophy prevents them from ever resisting a truly dedicated force.”⁴

An Example of one who lacks the will…

Professor Michael Horton of Westminster Seminary (California) is an example of an individual who wears his Christian garments, but lacks the will to resist the desire of the current cultural zeitgeist. From his vantage point not only is Christian Nationalism a gross error in judgment by those that profess the name of Christ, but a movement nothing short of heretical. In a short talk that was done for the Gospel Coalition (TGC), entitled “Why America is not a Christian Nation,” professor Horton opines,

“The problem with Christian nationalism is not that some Christians are taking a biblical idea too seriously… but that they are confusing America with Israel under the old covenant. From a biblical perspective, it’s actually heretical. It confuses the law with the gospel.”⁵

To a man like Horton, Christian Nationalism is a wrongheaded heretical movement that abuses the Bible, because it fails to recognize that America is not Israel⁶ and the law is distinct from the gospel. But what does he use to support his premise? Other than his own rhetorical opinions? He couches his narrative on the backdrop of the events surrounding January 6^th, 2021.

A Convenient Backdrop…

He describes the so-called open revolt against the civil government in Washington D.C. as “a mob of people hoisting up American flags” with “a wooden cross propped up outside the US capitol, not far from a faux hangman’s platform and noose apparently intended for the vice president.” He then notes how these individuals offered “Christian prayers once they infiltrated the senate chamber.”

I realize that this event has been a huge talking point for those on the LEFT, but having seen the initial footage on the day it was taking place, as well as that which was released in recent months, I have an entirely different take on the event. The overall event was not violent—although acts of violence were committed—because the law enforcement on the ground that day played a part in allowing citizens through the barriers into the capital buildings funded by American tax payers. Once inside the majority of those individuals were peaceful and considerate of others; including towards the questionable men in blue.

Such thoughts are not popularly conveyed in the open by a large portion of our populace. Which, I believe was one of the reasons for the unfolding of that day’s events anyway. As I said earlier fear is a great motivator. Fear comes in various shapes and sizes. It is expressed in different ways. Some run and hide, others learn to keep their mouth shut and go about their business. I believe the latter was the underlying reason for much of what we see pre, during, and post that day in history. A particular narrative was being painted by the media and the left in political office—even a great many fence straddlers—in order to condemn Trump and stifle his supporters. The fact that we have men and women still being held in prison without having a fair trial, as they are treated as prisoners of war, is a testament to how far the ideologues on the LEFT will go to get at their enemies, and how quickly much of the American population will turn a blind eye so long as they can continue living their own lives.

A Erudite Observation…

I listened to an old message presented by R. J. Rushdoony where he pointed out that the prophets were quick to call out the sinful acts, the downright wickedness, of the civil government during their lifetime… but oddly enough many Evangelical Christians are silent on pointing our the evil prevalent in American society. Our preachers and teachers, theologians and professors prefer to cry for “Peace, peace” (Jer 6.14; cf. v. 13) when no peace can or should be sought. How can you have peace when those in power doing everything they can to squash and silence our Christian heritage and the message it was built upon?

Mere Opinion…

Horton claims that the idea of a Christian nation is worse than being misguided, it’s heretical referring to Romans 2:24 and 2 Peter 2:2 as support for his conclusions. He says, there is confusion between the Law and Gospel; or, as I assume he means it, Law and Grace. A little further in his talk Horton asks the question of whether or not the idea of a Christian nation stands up to biblical scrutiny? He says, “I would suggest that the Bible opposes any notion of a Christian nation apart from the worldwide body of Christ.” Okay, fair enough, where does it state that? Where does the Bible say directly (or indirectly) that its author is opposed to a Christian nation? Or, if we dare push the envelope Christian Nations (plural, not singular)? Is the Triune God of Scripture against a nation or nations adopting the Christian faith as their faith?

Again, Horton ridicules such a notion stating,

“Despite what we hear in the oratory of the left and right alike, there is no national soul. Salvation does not come to nations….” (emphasis mine).

The claim has been made. The statement has been given, but where is the biblical evidence? Citing 2 Chronicles 7:14 and saying “That only applies to Israel”⁷ proves nothing. Moreover, I beg to differ. Horton offers a negative statement, but does not back it up. I’ll offer a couple positive ones, and then we can extrapolate from those.

Positive Scriptural Claims…

In Psalm 2 the writer has this to say about the nations:

“Why are the nations in an uproar and the peoples devising a vain thing? The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against His anointed saying, ‘Let us tear their fetters apart and cast away their cords from us!’ …I will surely tell you the decree of the Lord: He said to Me you are My Son, Today I have begotten you. ‘Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as your inheritance, and the very ends of the earth Your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron, You shall shatter them like earthenware.’ Now therefore ,O kings, show discernment; take warning, O judges of the earth. Worship the Lord with reverence and rejoice with trembling. Do homage to the Son, that He not become angry, and you perish in the way, For His wrath may soon be kindled. How blessed are all that take refuge in Him!’” (Psa 2.1-2, 7-11; NASB).

Here, the psalmist explains that nations rise or fall in relation to whether or not they serve or attempt to disregard the King of all the Earth. If the Son of God is threatened, He will shatter those who oppose Him. If the Son is recognized and given His due, then He will act in kindness towards that leader and his people after him. The reader ought to bear in mind that “salvation” is another term for deliverance. To be saved is to be delivered, to honor the Son, which is honoring God the Father is be delivered—i.e., saved from His wrath. This applies to more than just individuals, but to nations.

A similar truth is conveyed by Jeremiah the prophet:

“At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it [cf. Jonah 3]. Or another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it; if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it [cf. Deut 28] (Jer 18.7-10; also see: Deut 29.22-28). 8

We must be willing to note and embrace the commission that the Lord Jesus Christ has given His disciples (first in the 1^st century, but onward til today and into the future):

“All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matt 28.18b-20; also see: Isa 42.6).

Conflating Realities…

Horton does what I have seen other commentators do when speaking on subjects like this one, he conflates ideas, builds fine straw men, and then goes about demolishing them.

For example, he is guilty of conflating both the church and state in terms of ancient Israel’s past acting as if there was no distinction between the two. And then, he conflates the Kingdom of God, of Christ, with the visible/invisible Church. This form of conflation is common enough in Christian circles and it has more to do with ignorance of the subject matter in question than anything else. However, what I find interesting is that both objects of conflation (church and state in ancient Israel, and the Kingdom of Christ and His Church) are in essence the same sort of error.⁹

In the opening of his talk, Horton makes this claim about church and state in Israel:

“I would suggest that the Bible opposes any notion of a Christian nation apart from the worldwide body of Christ. See, there was a time biblically, when the church was the state and vice-versa, Israel, the old covenant. God was the head of the state and the whole nation and land were holy” (par. 2).¹⁰

And then, at the end of his talk, Horton closes with this claim about Kingdom and church:

“The church as an institution, doesn’t have a president or a legislative body to appeal to, but a king who has given it a specific commission… You see the worldwide church is Christ’s Kingdom. That is his beloved community. That is the shining city upon a hill. That is his chosen nation” (closing par.; emphasis mine).

So, according to Horton in the past, in ancient Israel, God was the head of the state. It was a theocratic state. A state led by God as King, as the testimony of Moses is clear in Deuteronomy 33:5,

“And He [that is, Yahweh] was king in Jeshurun, when the heads of the people were gathered, all the tribes of Israel together” (ASV; cf. Deut 33.2).11

Meaning, that Israel fell under the sovereign rule of their king; they had been established to be led by His rule. Jeshurun is a term of endearment that is used for the children of Israel that are called by God to be His own special possession in the earth. Where He placed His love on them, not because of their number, not because of their military might, but because of the promises that He swore to their forefathers: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (cf. Deut 4.37; 7.7-8; 10.15).

But God, being King over the nation of Israel did not dissolve the distinctions between the ecclesiastical sphere of governance from the civil sphere of governance—i.e., Church and State. The idea that having God as the head of the nation removes such separations of powers is ridiculous, and it seems to insinuate that Horton has not come to a proper understanding of the difference between church and state in ancient Israel.¹²

Moses was the Lord’s prophet and he acted as Judge (a civil officer) over the nation, but it was his brother Aaron who was God’s High Priest (ecclesiastical officer) acting as an intercessory before God and man through ceremonial laws. During the monarchy (or period of the kings) David led the procession into Jerusalem as the priests brought the ark of the covenant (with its mercy seat between the wings of the sculpted angelic host), but he did not carry the ark on its prescribed poles used for transportation. He danced his heart out in jubilation before the Lord and His people, but he did not act as a church officer that day. Several different places we see that difference in authority exercised between these two God appointed (ordained) offices. True there were at times extenuating circumstances that allowed for a temporary crossing of that separated boundary of powers, but they were not normative. If they were, then what right did the Lord have in striking king Uzziah with leprosy for offering incense in the temple; a priestly duty (cf. 2 Kgs 15.5; 2Chron 26.16-21; also see: Num 3.10)?

Closing Remarks…

Christian Nationalism is not a title that Christians gave to themselves, it was rubber stamped by those on the LEFT to anyone associated with supporting Donald Trump or the conservative movement in general. Horton claims,

“There’s nothing wrong with Christians as citizens participating in non-religious and non-violent protests for public policies. And there’s nothing wrong with Christians expressing healthy forms of patriotism, love for nation, and the nation’s ideals. But none of this should be confused with the Christians identity in the transnational family of God and no national political agenda or ideal can take priority over God’s global mandate and mission for his people.”

I’m not sure that men like Horton have truly thought through their statements before they publicly broadcast them. The underlying assumption that keeps getting smuggled in is that there is a neutral ground that is safe for Christians to step in, but not off of. Public policies by definition are religiously based. Is theft a religious issue? Yes. What about murdering one’s offspring in the womb? Yes. What about overtaxing the citizenry to pay for social aid? What about the curriculum presented in the public school system? Yes. All of these things and more, which have become public policy (some of which need to be done away with) are religiously motivated. What is a healthy form of patriotism? What does ones love for nation look like? Who defines these things? Who determines what ideals are properly suited for a nation? Who sets the guidelines? Who determines the standard? By what standard are these things to be established? The global mandate of Christ is to disciple the nations, what do we suppose those nations will look like as we are discipling them? Will they transition over time into a Christian nation? Should we say to that country that wants to adopt Christ and His Word as the ideal, the standard by which they live and govern their affairs, “No, you’re going to far. You can’t impose those convictions on others, that’s not fair. That’s not right. Its confusing privatized Christian faith with a national movement?

Before we argue something we need to see what the alternatives are. The Christian faith and the commandments that act as its guiding light are intrusive because the gospel of Christ is intrusive. It radically shifts our former dispositions and changes those convictions into that which aligns with the dictates of our King, Our High Priest, Our Prophet, Jesus Christ. If Christian Nationalism is taboo, what would a godly alternative look like? These are things that need to be mulled over, before we offer a knee jerk reaction that says “No way,” because we are more afraid of offending the world and its sensibilities rather than our professed Lord.

Of course, this raises other issues that I plan on addressing in my next post, but until then… God Bless.

ENDNOTES:

1Stephen Wolfe, The Case for Christian Nationalism (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2022), 3.

2John F. MacArthur, The Truth War: Fighting for Certainty in an Age of Deception (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2007), xxiii.

3Commentators are divided on this line of thinking. The varying beliefs fall along the line of those who believe that this was something that the Christians in Antioch gave to themselves that name (unlikely, given the wording of Acts 11:26 “they were first called”; referring to some outside source), that it was just a way of identifying this separate sect of God-worshipers that had some ties to the ancient Jewish faith (Gentiles in the Roman metropolitan city of Antioch gave them this name as an identifier), or that it was in fact attributed from those outside the faith but in a demeaning sense. “As the result of the persecutions which arose about St. Stephen, some of the disciples who had to flee for their lives came to Antioch. In time there grew up a church there, a mixed society of Jews and Gentiles, and the citizens of Antioch naturally asked, ‘What are they?’ ‘What name do they bear?’ ‘What is their object?’ While they were acquainted with the Jews and their peculiarities, they saw that this was not a Jewish organization, for it embraced Gentiles as well. When they learned that the one which held this society together was their belief in a Messiah, a Christ, the people of Antioch, who were celebrated for their fertility in nicknames, called the members of their society, Christians. Without doubt the name was given in ridicule. It did not spread widely at first; it is only twice used in the Bible and each time as a word of reproach. But as often happens with name thus conferred, this was a name to remain forever; a name that was to be powerful and far-reaching; a name that was to stand for all that is lovely, noble and beautiful in human life. Such is the origin of the name we bear. We are Christians because we know no other name but that of Christ and no other bond but that of union with Christ.” William James Miller, The American Church Dictionary and Cyclopedia (NY, New York: 1901), Public Domain, “Christian” s.v.

4Gary North, Conspiracy: A Biblical View, 2^nd Edition (Tyler, TX: Dominion Press, 1986), 89, PDF E-book.

5Michael Horton, “Why America Is Not a Christian Nation,” July 1, 2021, The Gospel Coalition, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/video/why-america-is-not-a-christian-nation/. The citations in this document are taken from a transcript file. You can click on it when you go to the URL cited here. The page warns that the transcript may contain errors. I listened to the podcast several times before writing this document. It is possible that there are some errors within the citations provided throughout, but they are minor (if at all) and they in no way deter from the points that Professor Horton was driving at in his speech.

6No one says that America is Israel. I find this conclusion interesting. I’ve heard it often, but if the group that you are accusing isn’t actually saying it, then it seems to me that you are pinning your interpretation of a person or a groups stance through your own biases.

7That is the insinuation that Horton makes; although, the statement is not articulated exactly as I have relayed it. Contextually, however, it is clear that is precisely the meaning he intends to convey to his listening audience.

8I note Jonah 3 in brackets for the Ninevites serve as an example of what God declares to rebellious Israel through the prophet Jeremiah. Destruction was promised for the Assyrian capital for their disregard for the righteousness of God (cf. Psa 2), but after hearing the preaching of Jonah—i.e., promised destruction for this sin—the king rent his clothes and repented in sackcloth and ash. From the top down the nation repented, and God spared them.

9I debated on whether or not this should have been included with the general flow of the text, or if it was better to separate this explanation containing it in a footnote. Obviously, I’ve chosen the latter (at least for the moment). The Kingdom of God—of Christ Jesus, the King—is in essence the rule of God exercised on earth as it is in heaven. The citizens of this kingdom are Christians, but those outside the kingdom (aliens or sojourners) still fall within the domain of the kingdom. The kingdom is the civil office of Christ the king who exercises His rule on earth as it is in heaven. One key way that He does this is by breaking the fetters of those formerly held prisoner to sin. Giving a new lease on life (i.e., a born-again life) the believer is now able to live obediently under Christ’s reign; an exercise in upholding the Law of God. At the same time, the believer becomes a member of the Body of Christ, His ecclesiastical sphere of governance. And like the civil sphere, there are those outside this body who have come in (aliens and sojourners) some of which will be saved but others will not. The point is that the Church is not the Kingdom, they are two separate powers of governance (two distinct spheres); the Church being the ecclesiastical branch and the Kingdom being the civil branch. Christians who fail to make this distinction conflate the ecclesiastical and civil within ancient Israel.

10It should be noted that this quote is taken from a transcription of the stated talk by Michael Horton, therefore, it is possible that some errors exist within the transcript. However, after listening to the talk more than once and reading and rereading through the transcript I was not aware of any errors other than perhaps some punctuation here and there.

11Jeshurun (Yeshurun) is a poetic term of endearment for Israel meaning “upright one.” Bracketed section added for clarity, it is in reference to Deuteronomy 33:2.

12It would do Horton and others that share his sentiment to do a little reading on the subject of the separation of powers existent in ancient Israel. A careful survey of the Old Testament documents would help a lot along this cause, but reading those that devoted their life and ministry to the subject matter in question would also benefit. Take for instance Greg L. Bahnsen. His Masters thesis dealt with this subject—the separation of governing spheres highlighting the theonomic outlook of a godly nation—entitled, Theonomy in Christian Ethics, of which, I offer a poignant quote here in a moment. Later Bahnsen would add two other books specifically in this genre. The first, which was further development of his earlier thesis, is entitled By This Standard, and then, No Other Standard, which served as a weighty response to his critics. In By This Standard, Bahnsen writes, “…the Older Testament indicates a standing separation of church and state, and this fact should be recognized. There was a church and state… for Aaron represented the people in distinctly cultic matters while Moses rendered general, civil leadership for [Israel] (functioning a king over the gathered heads of the tribes, Deut 33:5). So also in restored Jerusalem there was clearly a distinction between Nehemiah the ‘governor’ and Ezra the ‘scribe’; it is specifically because the civil governor could not regulate the religious life of the people that Nehemiah called for Ezra to return to Jerusalem.” (Theonomy in Christian Ethics, 389, Kindle edition).

p.sdfootnote-western { color: #000000; font-family: “Liberation Serif”, serif; font-size: 10pt; so-language: en-US; line-height: 100%; text-align: left; orphans: 2; widows: 2; margin-left: 0.24in; text-indent: -0.24in; margin-bottom: 0in; direction: ltr; background: transparent }p.sdfootnote-cjk { color: #000000; font-family: “Noto Serif CJK SC”; font-size: 10pt; so-language: zh-CN; line-height: 100%; text-align: left; orphans: 2; widows: 2; margin-left: 0.24in; text-indent: -0.24in; margin-bottom: 0in; direction: ltr; background: transparent }p.sdfootnote-ctl { color: #000000; font-family: “FreeSans”; font-size: 10pt; so-language: hi-IN; line-height: 100%; text-align: left; orphans: 2; widows: 2; margin-left: 0.24in; text-indent: -0.24in; margin-bottom: 0in; direction: ltr; background: transparent }p { color: #000000; line-height: 115%; text-align: left; orphans: 2; widows: 2; margin-bottom: 0.1in; direction: ltr; background: transparent }p.western { font-family: “Liberation Serif”, serif; font-size: 12pt; so-language: en-US }p.cjk { font-family: “Noto Serif CJK SC”; font-size: 12pt; so-language: zh-CN }p.ctl { font-family: “FreeSans”; font-size: 12pt; so-language: hi-IN }a.sdfootnoteanc { font-size: 57% }