Another Swatch on the movement called Christian Nationalism: What Makes it Christian?

“I am a Christian, and I am not a globalist. I am a Christian, and I am not a tribalist. I am a Christian, and I have to live somewhere. What shall we call that? … Mere Christendom is not Christian Nationalism. Mere Christendom is the sum total of lots of smaller Christian nationalisms” –Doug Wilson, Mere Christendom¹

INTRODUCTION:

Dr. James R. White makes an astute observation regarding the use of language—i.e., it has baggage. He writes,

“Words often carry with them ‘baggage’ that has become attached to the meaning of a word. The way we use the word may cause us to conjure up particular mental images every time time we hear it.”²

As best as I can tell that’s what I believe happens or has happened when a person encounters the phrase “Christian Nationalism.” Certain preconceived ideas stop or stifle healthy dialogue. Traditional understandings of what a Christianized state looks like (many based on solid historical evidence of abuses) present yield signs to the mind confronted with the concept. Or, a person’s prior commitment to an eschatological hermeneutic that rejects offhandedly anything that might present a contradiction or threat to their theological system. The point I am making is that when a person hears the phrase “Christian Nationalism” there are various things that affect their reaction to it; what Dr. White calls baggage that “conjure[s] up particular mental images every time” the phrase “Christian Nationalism” is uttered.

A Needful Reminder and Some Food for Thought…

I hate to repeat myself, but I think it is important to keep saying it: Christian Nationalism is a pejorative conjured up by the LEFT wing ideologues in our nation. Not everyone they label within the “movement” is white, let alone Christian. And it appears that this phrase “White Christian Nationalist” (often shortened in some circles to just Christian Nationalist) was created to subvert the debate beginning to be had in various quarters of our nation regarding woke, social justice advocates, also known as “cultural Marxists;” a poignant observation made by Dr. Voddie Baucham.³

My goal in this post…

Now the question I’d like to pose today is, “What is the definitional criteria for determining when something is Christian or not?” I ask because it is often purported by some of my brethren that in order for us to have a Christian Nation there has to be a great moving of the Holy Spirit. This, I do not deny.

“Faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the Word of Christ” (Rom 10.17; NASB).4

“It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing” (John 6.63).

“Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again [lit. born from above] he cannot see the kingdom of God… that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit” (John 3.3, 6-8).

Unless a person comes to faith in Jesus Christ through the preaching of His Word via the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit, demonstrating the true call of the Father to the Son, then that person will remain in their sin. They have not experienced the merciful grace of God, and therefore, cannot rightly be called a Christian. I too believe this. This is the purity standard of true belief, true redemption, true deliverance from sin. But, is that what is needed to call a nation Christian? Is the standard absolute purity? Is that the standard needed to set a nation apart from others?

I can understand such a line of thought from my Baptist brethren who believe in what is called a “Believer’s Baptism.” The belief that a person cannot enter into covenant with God in the Christian faith without first having been regenerated. I do not deny the fact that a true believer must be baptized, and through this sacramental act/rite they are visibly recognized as a member of the covenantal community in Christ. And yet, true belief is not required to enter into covenant with God. That’s a tricky sentence. I’m not denying true belief is necessary to truly be in covenant with God as a covenant-keeper; a faithful one. But a person may enter into covenant with God and not be a believer; to their own demise. For to enter into such an oath with the Holy Lord and then not uphold their end (i.e., be genuine) is a recipe for greater condemnation in the end (e.g., Matt 26.24-25).

My only point is that I understand the trepidation of my Baptist brethren of calling any nation Christian without a great movement by the Holy Spirit. Of course, this then begs the question of what we are calling, and how we are defining, “a great movement by the Holy Spirit.” The assumption is that this must be a bottom up movement—grassroots, locally, in terms of individuals—rather than, a top down movement. I know some of my Presbyterian brothers hold this notion as well. This too makes sense. Change first happens in the heart of the individual. It happens one person at a time, sometimes slowly, sometimes more rapidly.

Take for example the great conversion that occurred under the preaching of Peter in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2.41); whereas, the conversion of just one individual—the apostle Paul—took much longer than just one message. For Paul heard the testimony of Stephen and rejected it (Acts 7; 8.1). No doubt, he heard the testimony of many brothers and sisters in Christ before breathing murderous threats and dragging them off to judgment (Acts 8.3; 9.1-2). It was not until his journey to Damascus that the Lord called him to stop persecuting Him and His people, to stop kicking against the truth and believe. Both were great movements by the Holy Spirit that bore much fruit, but the timing of each was according to God’s divine pleasure and not man. But the representatives of Christ were called to preach/proclaim the truth without respect for numbers in favor or in opposition trusting that in the end the truth would win out. And it did. And it has.

Realities versus the Rejection…

Is it right to call a nation Christian? Like Doug Wilson above I see no reason not to. And, like pastor Wilson my understanding of what Christian Nationalism looks like versus others is markedly different. I see each nation as falling under the Kingship of Jesus Christ. I see the responsibility of the Christian Church to proclaim the gospel of this Kingdom—His Kingdom—in the hopeful confidence that God, in His timing, will bring every nation to the point of kissing the Son (cf. Psa 2). The end goal being many Christian nations being grafted into Christendom—i.e., Christ’s Kingdom.

And while some will bring forth the attempts in the past that have failed as evidence why it cannot happen, arguing from this that it should not be a goal of God’s people here on earth. I challenge that notion pointing out that if that is the criteria for whether a thing should be attempted or forgotten, then we might as well put up our mantle of calling ourselves Christians for our attempts to live holy lives fully devoted to our King, loving Him and His creatures, has failed many, many times in our lives personally, and as a body of believers corporately. If the criteria is perfection, then any area where we say that Christ is Lord and we have failed as a people, is a wasted cause and needs to be forgotten. Now, I know true Christians don’t believe that personally for like Peter though we confess ourselves sinners unworthy of the Savior we have NO WHERE else to go (cf. Luke 5.8; John 6.68).

Rather than look to our past failures as a reason to not try, wouldn’t it be wiser to look at our past failures and see where it was we failed, and then, improve upon them? Is that not why we have the Scriptures (cf. Rom 15.4; 1 Cor 10.11; 2 Tim 3.16-17)? So that, we can see where our brethren of the past have failed and learn from those mistakes? Is this not meant to be applied beyond our personal pietistic goals?

A false reductionist view…

Let us take a look at how we define things Christian, and let us do it with the three governmental bodies that God has ordained from the beginning. We know that we are to personally govern ourselves, to have self-control in light of what the Lord’s Law-Word teaches. Or, at least I hope we do. Christ Jesus is called King of kings and Lord of lords. He is ruler over all rulers. He has authority in heaven and on earth. As Isaiah prophesied regarding Him:

“For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness from then on and forevermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this” (Isa 9.6-7).

This governmental hierarchy applies to Christ as the Chief Sovereign. He acknowledged this when He stood before His accusers conflating Psa 110 and Daniel 7.13-14 to Himself (Matt 26.64). He acknowledged this to His disciples before His ascension in Matthew 28:18-20. And, having been called by Him, regenerated by the Spirit, because of the love of the Father bestowed on the Son giving a people to Him as an inheritance, we know that in Christ our first responsibility is to live and die for Him (cf. Rom 14.7-12). Our charge is to live according to the Spirit in light of the new Man we have been enjoined to, rather than living for the flesh the remnant of the former man to whom we first entered this world (cf. Gal 5.16-17; Eph 4.17-24; Rom 5.12-21; 8.4).

The family…

How do we define a family Christian? What does it take to make that distinction? Does it require one spouse or two to be saved? Does it require that all the children are saved? Is the criteria for determining whether or not a family is Christian the entirety of the home or just one of the heads of house? Both the jailer that Paul met and the Roman Centurion that Peter witnessed to were identified as believers, with the result being that their entire household was baptized in the name of our Lord. I realize that my Baptist brethren would deny any children who did not believe as being counted since they deny paedobaptism as an error. But I am not arguing here whether or not the children were baptized in these homes, I am more concerned about how we would define those homes today. My guess is that we would without question call them “Christian” because of the representative head who was in covenant with the Lord via faith. A similar lesson is taught by Paul in 1 Corinthians when he discusses what to do when only one spouse is a believer:

“For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy” (1 Cor 7.14).

The faith of one representative head sets-apart the entire household as devoted to the Lord. They would be called a Christian family—in terms of covenantal standards—even though one or two of them might be unbelievers. A family with two Christian parents is a Christian family, even though their children might not have faith in the Lord. A family with one spouse dedicated the Lordship of Christ would likewise be defined as Christian in the sense that the Lord looks on the true member of His household (i.e., kingdom) in kindness. The fact that the unbelieving spouse is willing to live with the believer shows that God is not done with that family unit. And from what I understand in some Muslim countries this is precisely how the Lord works in redeeming other members of the household; but, not always.

My only point is that we call a family Christian even though 100% of the members might not yet (or ever) be believers. You may reject my thoughts on this, but let us look at another.

The Church…

As before, I ask what defines a Church as Christian? Is it required that all members of the local body are redeemed? I’m not asking what we might desire as Christians—that every member of our local worshiping community be saved—but what is reality. What if the congregation is made up of true believers, but it is found out that the pastor or other elders are charlatans? Does that nullify the designation of calling it a Christian Church? What if it is split down the middle, even though the baptism role is nearly 100%, does that nullify their status as a Christian Church? No, a Christian Church is defined by faith in Christ, in His Word, and the faithful dispensing of His sacraments (i.e., Baptism and Communion). Stragglers or aliens in their midst, whether they be nominal Christians or sinners who have never made a profession but desire to sit in the Lord’s House on the Lord’s Day, do not define whether or not a Church is Christian. 100% faithfulness might be the desired goal, but it is not the reality of what is rightly called a Christian Church.

The Nation…

Now, I imagine by now—even if you are really slow—you see where I am headed. If the family and the Church do not require 100% faithfulness by all its members in order to be properly designated as Christian, then cannot we not say the same logically of a nation? Especially, a nation whose life and character, her very foundation, was built upon the Christian worldview as defined by the Bible? Is it wrong to call that nation Christian?

Before you attempt to answer take a moment to reflect on what God declared Israel to be in the past even though we know that not everyone of Israel (i.e., covenantally joined) was truly Israel (cf. Rom 9. ); and yet, they were identified as God’s chosen people:

“Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod 19.5-6).5

Realizing of course that the situation that we see revealed to us in the book of Exodus is unique in the sense that this calling is peculiar (special) in history. Meaning that I am not claiming that any nation on this earth may claim to be a covenanted version of Israel as we see in the ancient past. However, this does not preclude the idea that a nation may embrace Christ and be called Christian because of the foundational nature by which it is established, or through a moving of the Holy Spirit where a number of its citizens have become believers and overtime have changed the outlook of the nation from a local to a federal level; thereby ratifying a covenant with the Lord.

Certainly such was the desire (originally at least) of those that settled in this land as several of our founding documents testify.⁶ Nor does this deny that even in the midst of such a nation that there will be those who are antagonistic to the Christian faith or only allied with it in a nominal sense until a time comes where they might seize power for the object of their faith secretly held; which is what I believe we are witnessing in this nation at this time in history.

My only argument at this point is that calling the United States a Christian nation or pursuing that as a goal, say in Brazil, for example is not something out of reach, or unlikely, or undesirable, as our Christian heritage here in the West certainly attests to. This brings me to one final point that I would like to state before closing on this short article.

Initially, it was noted that a great movement of the Holy Spirit is necessary in order for us to call such a nation Christian. Presumably this is argued from the ground up, rather than the top down. I would however gently challenge this presumption and say, “Why not both? Why not from the bottom and the top?” Such a challenge is offered on the grounds that this is precisely how we see things transpire in the biblical record, where the people from the bottom at a local level, and the king from the top on the chief seat of government has called for the nation to declare that God is God over all.

Locally…

We could argue that according to the transformation that we witness in the Roman Empire in the first century this was a grass roots effort. For the apostles and those who became believers through them slowly changed the scope of the Empire from the ground up. Thus it was said of the Christians in Thessalonica,

“These men who have upset the world have come here also; and Jason has welcomed them, and they all act contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus” (Act 17.6-7).

Top down…

At the preaching of Jonah in the Assyrian city state of Nineveh we find that upon hearing the judgment of God’s rule (the exercise of His kingdom on earth and His wrath towards the wicked) the entire city repented of their ways in sackcloth and fasting, and this came as an edict given to the people by their king that they and their animals from the greatest to the smallest repent not just in word, but in deed (cf. Matt 3.8-9). As it is written,

“Then Jonah began to go through the city one day’s walk; and he cried out and said, ‘Yet forty days and Nineveh will be overthrown.’ Then the people of Nineveh believed in God; and they called a fast and put on sackcloth from the greatest to the least of them. When the word reached the king of Nineveh, he arose from his throne, laid aside his robe from him, covered himself with sackcloth and sat on the ashes. He issued a proclamation and it said, ‘In Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles: Do not let man, beast, herd, or flock taste a thing. Do not let them eat or drink water. But both man and beast must be covered with sackcloth; and let men call on God earnestly that each may turn from his wicked way and from the violence which is in his hands. Who knows, God may turn and relent and withdraw His burning anger so that we will not perish.’ When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it” (Jonah 3.4-10).7

This is one example where the top ordered a proper response towards God at the bottom being moved by His Spirit. Other examples, if we were so inclined to look at them would include the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar (cf. Dan 4.1-3, 34-37), and Darius, king of the Mede-Persians (cf. Dan 6.25-27). If the desire is to now argue that after a generation the movement of those nations changed, I will not deny that, but that is not what I am arguing for at this time. All I want to prove is that a believing nation is possible, and while it requires a movement of God’s Spirit to accomplish this through the agency of His representatives and the proclamation of His Law-Word, it may occur not just from the bottom but also from the top. I find that if we say it must occur from the top as some are inclined to do, this is false; but no less false than those that say it must occur from the bottom. Rather than presenting a false dichotomy of how God’s Spirit moves, instead let us embrace the fact that God can make use of both, or just one from either above or below. Either way, it is still something that God must supernaturally bring about through the earthly means that He has ordained.

Closing Thoughts…

Whatever baggage we might bring into the conversation regarding Christian nationalism, it is my hope that the more rational and logical and theologically minded would be able to set aside mere differences in order to ascertain the true nature of the subject being discussed. Do not take a position either for or against until you are aware of what is being argued and on what basis the argument is being carried forward. I fear that a great many Christian embrace the phrase for the simple fact that the name “Christian” is in it, and in the same respect that an equal or larger group is rejecting it offhandedly without carefully thinking through the implications of its denial. There is no question that in order for any nation to be called Christian there must be a movement of the Holy Spirit. However, this “movement” does not require a large majority in order for it to progress. Numbers are not what is important, but rather strategic growth is. And the last time I checked it is the Holy Spirit that brings about growth, not the planning of men.

That being said, the man who does not bring forth the effort to break up fallowed ground, till the earth, and actively plant the seed cannot expect for the Lord to bring growth; to have a high crop yield. Like it or not we are the means to which the Lord works in this world, for we are His representatives. If Christians are not serious about changing the culture—i.e., the national bedrock—then we are not doing our due diligence for the coming “movement” of the Holy Spirit. And, if we are unwilling to mold the image of this nation after its true Lord, then the underlings of another master will do their darnedest to bring about the image of the one they serve.

ENDNOTES:

1Doug Wilson, Mere Christendom (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2023), 84, 87.

2James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, [1998] 2012), Kindle Edition, 25.

3“Christian Nationalism,” Founders Ministries, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Eyc5_IxN3c.

4Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture shall be of the New American Standard Bible (NASB 95’).

5This is from the NASB 2020 update.

6See: Benjamin F. Morris, The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States, 2^nd Edition, Reprint 1864 (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision Press, [2007], 2021). In the 9^th chapter entitled “Statesmen of the Revolution—Their views of Christianity and its Relation to Civil Society and Government,” Morris notes, “Wise and good men are God’s workmen in laying the foundation and in completing the structures of human society. Every great and important era in history has been distinguished by the providential appearance and the successful labors of superior men, whose minds have been illuminated and whose steps have been guided by divine wisdom, and who have given progress to the interests of liberty and religion. As representative men—men of God, ordained and prepared for their special mission—contemplate Moses, the man of Providence, whose wisdom and genius have moulded the civil and religious institutions of all Christian nations; Paul, whose Christian faith, inspired writings, and heroic life have kindled the fires of freedom and truth among the nations of the earth, and exerted a boundless influence upon the intellectual and spiritual elevation and regeneration of the world…” (p. 139). Morris goes on to speak of Luther, Calvin, Wickliffe, Wesley, and even General Washington, a man known as “the defender of his country, the founder of a Christian republic…” stating that, “These men were men of God, and divinely endowed and prepared for their great Christian work in giving the blessings of civil and religious liberty to nations” (p. 140).

7Commenting on this portion of Scripture John Calvin stated that it appears from the language of the text “…that the preaching of Jonah immediately reached the king; and I am disposed to take this view, as Jonah seems here to explain how the Ninevites were led to put on sackcloth. He had before briefly spoken on the subject [Jonah 3.5], but he now explains what took place more fully; and we know that it was commonly the manner of the Hebrews—to relate the chief points in few words, and then to add an explanation. As then Jonah had said in the last verse [Jonah 3.5] that the Ninevites had put on sackcloth, and proclaimed a fast, so he now seems to express more distinctly how this happened, that is, through the royal edict. And it is by no means probable that a fast was proclaimed in the royal city by the mere consent of the people, as the king and his counselors were there present. Inasmuch then as it appears more reasonable that the edict respecting the fast had proceeded from the king, I am therefore inclined so tot connect the two verses, as that the first briefly mentions the fruit which followed the preaching of Jonah, and that the second [cf. Jonah 3.6-9] is added as an explanation, for it gives a fuller account of what took place.” John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, note on Jonah 3:6.