Christ IS King

INTRODUCTION:

As you can tell the subject of Christian Nationalism has intrigued me for some time. My primary concern is the intramural debate going on within the Christian community. A back and forth sort of tug of war has been playing out in various sectors of the Church. Individuals like Ligon Duncan are pushing hard against the narrative insisting that Christians need to spend their energies on serious Bible-study, robust theological reflection, and a core focus on the gospel, rather than getting entangled in this fad.¹ Whereas, people like Owen Strachan mock the idea of a Christian Nation saying,

“Nations can be profoundly influenced by Christianity, but only people—sinners—can become Christian.”²

The call to be gospel-minded or gospel-centered ought to be a genuine concern for individual Christians, pastors, and seminary professors. We need to preach Christ crucified. How can you claim to be a Christian minister, a herald of the gospel of God and His Christ without seeking to do this. But what does it mean? I hear the sentiments that Christians need to be serious about studying Scripture, getting their minds enriched with solid theological truths, in order to live gospel filled lives… but, what does that look like? How is it done?

What’s the Debate even about?

What is the current debate swirling around Christian Nationalism even about? It is an argument about what is and what is not reality. The disagreement is tied to our worldview. Simple enough. We hear that all the time. But, the reader could just as easily ask: “But, what does that mean? What does that entail?” Whenever the subject of truth is approached it is rooted in something. The starting point of all truth is situated somewhere (in something), the search begins and ends with the rock upon which it is girded. Not all rocks are equal, nor are all foundations upon which knowledge is built—the essence of all truth claims—are equal.

There are those on both sides of the aisle that lament the idea of Christian Nationalism. Both sides. Conservatives and liberals alike, Christian and non hear the mention of this topic and their opinions are not long in being spoken. I know of many Christians leaders that I listen to, men I have a great deal of respect for, who detest the phrase Christian Nationalism. However, I want to remind my readers that Christians did not argue for this moniker, it was placed on us.

When I was much younger one of my little sisters did something comparable to me when we were still living at home. To put me in my place, she’d say to me, “Kristafal, you think you’re such a hotshot!” Now, I didn’t. I don’t. But by calling me that name she sought to remind me of my place; to bring down a notch or two.

Similarly, those on the LEFT, and those in the Church (be they pietist or pacifist or two kingdom acolytes, it matters little to me) have sought to put Christians and conservatives in the nation in our place. Another thing that we might consider is that the reason this conversation is still ongoing, and at times heated, shows the importance of the discussion and the need to hash out its particulars.

By the way, being a conservative is not the same thing as being a Christian. The two do not necessarily go hand-in-hand. The conservative likes to keep things a certain way because of tradition; “that’s how its always been; those were the good old days.” Whereas, the Christian likes to move things in a particular direction because “the Bible tells me so.”

My conviction is that all nations ought to be Christian, and that within the greater Kingdom of Christ (aka., Mere Christendom… to borrow from Doug Wilson³)? Notice that latter phrase: “…within the greater Kingdom of Christ,” this unravels another layer of this debate, because some have dared to declare the obvious truth: Christ IS King.

Christ IS King…

Christ is King is not controversial to an individual Christian, or a Christian family, or even a Christian church. All such people and governing bodies will readily acknowledge that Jesus Christ is King. That He is the King of the kingdom. And, that His kingdom while not “of this earth” (that is, “FROM this earth” in terms of origin; John 19:36), is certainly on this earth as it is in heaven. In fact, as King of kings and Lord of lords His authority is in the highest heavens and on this earth, even in its deepest bowels. There is no area in all creation where His authority is not exercised.

In fact, to preach Christ-crucified is to preach the undeniable truth that the grave was powerless to hold Him. He conquered death, the devil, and the wages of sin in one fell swoop. When He walked out of the tomb three days later, it was a demonstration of divine power. According to Jesus testimony before Pontius Pilate He was born for this very purpose—to be King (John 18:33-37). His own people who rejected Him stated that they did not want Him as king over them, for they had Caesar instead (cf. John 19:12, 15). And, if you know your Bible, then there is no question who the real blasphemers were on the day of Jesus’ crucifixion. For the Jewish leaders preferred pagan Rome’s emperor as their king rather than the God of Heaven and Earth:

“Pilate said to them, ‘Shall I crucify your King?’ The chief priests answered, ‘We have no king but Caesar’” (John 19:15).

And yet…

“But the Lord is the true God; He is the living God and the everlasting King…” (Jer. 10:10; cf. 1Sam. 8:7; Psa. 10:16; Psa 44:4 ; Isa. 33:22).

The claim is of faith, not hate…

Russel Moore would like us to believe that to make this claim is anti-Semitic.⁴ Evidently, Candace Owens got fired for saying this very thing to Ben Shapiro (or, at least on his network The Daily Wire). However, how can claiming the Kingship of Christ be such when He Himself is a Jew? This is akin to calling a black man an Uncle Tom because he dares speak against LEFT-leaning theology/ideology, or, daring to vote Republican rather than Democrat. However, complaining, jeering or speaking down the notion that Christ is King is far more nefarious.

To believe that Christ is King is an act of faith. Have you not read:

“Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified” (Acts 2:36).

To call Jesus Lord and Christ is to recognize that He is God’s Anointed Son, or “My God and King” (Psa. 5:2; cf. John 20:28).

What can we compare the debate to?

Going back to my original question: What can we compare this ongoing skirmish between those who believe all individuals and the nations that they fill need to declare, “Christ is King.” “Wait a minute, I thought we were talking about Christian Nationalism here? What’s this talk about Jesus being King?” It is precisely because Jesus Christ is king that the nations of this earth ought to be Christian. Now we can hash out a midst ourselves as to what a Christian Nation ought to look like within the larger Kingdom of Christ. I’m pretty confident that there will be nuances how one nation of people would look versus another. And yet, the fact of the matter is—without equivocation—that Christ is King. All knees shall bow before Him and confess His Lordship. To be Lord is to be King. And to be King is a political position. And, I must confess that is why we find many of our own professed brethren siding with the pluralists and polytheists; under the preferred noun, secularist.

Polytheism, Pluralism and Relativism: The Stuff of which Secular Humanism is Made

Secular humanism teaches that man is the highest value. That man determines right and wrong, good and evil. And, all that really amounts to is a bunch of relativists shouting that their way is right, that we need to be inclusive of the rights of others, which is nothing less than polytheism put on display, and, when we get to political meanderings it is nothing short of pluralism. The reason I say this is because that is precisely what is taught in our public school systems, our media—corporate or social—and our various governing agencies, with the FEDs speaking from on high.

In fact, the only way that is wrong, the only opinion or way of thinking that is intolerable is that of the Christian who stands firmly on the Holy Bible as the revelatory Word of God; the Spirit’s voice put into letters, the final testimony of our Lord and God, Jesus Christ the King. When it comes to that line of thinking, all the secular humanist’s, which are really relativistic polytheists or political pluralists, become unified in their hearts. All viewpoints are tolerable except for that viewpoint that calls into question the beliefs of fallen man, who worships himself/herself.

When the viewpoint is Christ, His Kingdom, and His Law as “the only way, the only truth, the only life moving towards eternity with the Father,” (John 14:6; paraphrased) then those who oppose it are unanimous in their decision to “tear down every vain argument raised against their false god, and to bring all thoughts into submission to it” (2Cor. 10:4-6; again paraphrased after the viewpoint of the enemy).

Thus, the statement Christ is King is offensive. The statement that all are commanded to repent and believe in Jesus Christ lest they perish in their sins, is the epitome of foolishness, a stone of stumbling. The statement that God’s kingdom come “on earth as it is in heaven,” (Matt 6:10b) and that being demonstrated through Christ’s representatives on earth, therefore, we are to work to establish Christian individuals, families, assemblies of worship, and civil offices of governance, is utterly blasphemous!

What should we compare our professed brethren to who denounce the message above? To what spirit should we identify it with? Allow me a bit of nuance here for I would like to use a bit of our Christian history here to illustrate what I believe is one of the key problems not recognized in this foaming of the mouth we witness within the halls of what is often called the Christian community in light of the current topic being addressed.

Peter’s debacle…

“From that time Jesus Christ began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day. And Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, ‘God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You.’ But He turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s’” (Matt. 16:21-23; NASB).

Now you might wonder how I’m going to use this text in a way to prove my point? Well let us consider the motivations of Jesus and Peter and consider the contrast being presented in the text, seeking to highlight the root problem presented in Peter’s rebuke of Jesus. I think it is necessary for us to be reminded of the fact that Peter was (is) a genuine believer.⁵ He loved the Lord. From a human point of view, Peter was a man who was willing to fight for his friend. His intentions, we might say, were well meant. But, as we note from Jesus condemnation of Peter at this moment, those intentions of Peter were severely misguided.

Jesus’ chief concern on this earth was fulfilling the Father’s will. God’s Word motivated Christ. He wanted to obey. First, because He loved His Father, but also, as a consequential byproduct, He loved His sheep. He demonstrated true love for His neighbor. The welfare of His disciples was what moved Him. The work of the Father was what drove Him. So, when He told His disciples what must soon take place regarding His betrayal, arrest, beatings and death, He was speaking from the conviction that God’s Word is unbreakable and true to a fault.

Peter on the other hand heard what His Lord, His Teacher, and Friend was saying and it struck a nerve. He didn’t understand the comings and goings on at that time. He didn’t know the Scriptures well enough to argue his point. The fact is, the only point that was true was the one Jesus was making, but Peter refused to take that hard saying to heart. He wouldn’t let it penetrate his mind, it seemed wrong. It didn’t feel right. Jesus had to be wrong. He must have messed something up in His reasoning from Scripture and the circumstances around Him. In that moment, Peter’s emotions, his logic and reasoning was skewed. By what though?

“...you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s” (Matt. 16:23).

There it is. Right there. That’s the problem.

Wrapping it up…

Nationalism is a divisive word in Christian circles, or, its more known counterpart—Christendom. The same is true of other terms associated with the movement: theonomy, dominion, reconstruction. The more I read and listen to the arguments that attempt to throw down these ideas, the more I am convinced that many—not all—have refused to investigate these things thoroughly. We all have blinders, but not all blinders are equal. Dr. Gary North was very fond of pointing out: “you can’t beat something with nothing.”

What is the alternative? By definition a nation is made up of laws. Whose laws will we appeal to? Behind each nation sits a god. Whose god shall be ours? Power and dominion are inescapable concepts. Whose power and dominion is worthy of being exercised and to what end? All lives and the societies that they build or rebuild are being shaped into a particular image that they reflect. Whose image is being constructed/reconstructed in our nation?

If we are to set our minds on God’s interests and not man’s, then where ought we to look? Where shall we seek answers? The Christian answer is the Word of God; the Holy Bible and the incarnated Lord. Kingdom building is an inescapable concept, the question centers on (founded upon) whose kingdom? If Christ is King, and if His authority is in the highest heavens and the lowest bowels of the earth, can we then dare to argue that another alternative must be sought after in the civil realm? Are Christians really so brazen to claim that pluralism is the route that needs to be taken in society? That our consciences must be free to rebel against the One to whom we have been commanded to kiss (cf. Psa. 2)? Christ IS King and it is His bidding that we ought to do, in our personal lives, in our families, in our churches, and yes, in the forming of the society to which we are all currently gathered—i.e., the nation that we call home. Any other alternative is nothing less than having our mind on the will of man, rather than our Father’s blessed Son who reigns.

ENDNOTES:

1These line of thought was expressed by Ligon Duncan during an interview on the Podcast “Room for Nuance.” See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=548rPIIBdlU. My response to this is two-fold. First, why not do these things Duncan identifies as important without not neglecting the latter (cf. Matt 23:23; Luke 11:42). Second, what use is Bible-study, theological reflection, and being gospel-centered if there are no practical, real-life applications being exercised as the result of the training—i.e., building schools, orphanages, hospitals, serving in political offices, etc.

2https://twitter.com/ostrachan/status/1724124384854516061.

3“So what do I mean by mere Christendom exactly? I mean a network of nations bound together by a formal, public, civic acknowledgment of the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and the fundamental truth of the Apostles’ Creed. I mean a public and formal recognition of the authority of Jesus Christ that repudiates the principles of secularism, and that avoids both hard sectarianism and easy latitudinarianism both. Easier said than done, but there it is.” Doug Wilson, Mere Christendom (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2023), 69. Italics in original.

4Russell Moore, “‘Christ is King’ Is Not the Slogan Some White Nationalists Want it to Be,” Christianity Today, March 28, 2024, https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2024/march-web-only/christ-king-antisemitism-russell-moore-candace-owens.html.

5“You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God… Have you not read what was spoken to you by God, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living” (Matt. 22:29, 32). Thus, Peter is still a believer, a glorified believer who is now in the present of the Almighty.