Today’s article will serve as a summary statement of the last four posts published on my blog. At times I tend to be a bit wordy. I realize this. There have been those in my life that have lovingly pointed this out. On more than one occasion. After looking at the average read time for my latest submission (a whopping 31 minutes!) I decided that it might be in my best interest, and in the interest of any reader who is curious about the subject but prefers to avoid eye strain, to hit the major points without going into a lot of detail. I just want to list the key issues surrounding the topic of Christian Nationalism as I see them, and if the reader is interested they may go back and read the articles from which these points were taken in their entirety.
Where to start? How about some of the key terms or ideas that I touch on. What I mean when I say them, and why they are important. The ordering here does not reflect the release dates of my blogs on the subject. The first grouping started back in January and February of this year, this later grouping (the specific ones I’m referring to in this summary statement) began about the middle of October 2024.
Christian Nationalism and Sacralism…
Christian Nationalism (Nationalist, or its derivatives) are words that have been popularized by our LEFTIST media. Some people prefer the terms progressive or liberal, others do not. Words can have a wide range of meaning. I associate those that hold to such positions as antagonistic to the Biblical faith, pluralistic and relativistic in thought. They are language deconstructionists (e.g., transgender movement), and historical revisionists. They imbibe a desire for global consensus and are anti-nationalist’s at heart. Obviously, I am painting them with a very wide brush. I understand that there will be a wide range of variance between individuals, just as there are those within the conservative camp. My only point in referencing them here is that within the media various ideologues sounded the alarm of white Christian Nationalists. Calling the movement racist, and an attack on democracy. They often cite the phony bologna January 6th “Insurrection Attempt” to overthrow the 2020 election as proof positive that this movement is real and dangerous.
I know a lot of my brethren desire to steer away from the label of Christian Nationalist for a variety of reasons, some of which are notable, but I, like so many others, have decided to embrace it in so far that I can discuss the subject. What do I mean when I refer to Christian Nationalism? Well, I don’t think “whites” for starters. To be Christian is to be of every tribe and tongue on the earth. While I do believe that there are a variety of ethnicities, in Christ that distinction placed in the background as our identity in Him takes preeminence.
I do think, Christian nations. That is in the plural sense. If Jesus Christ is King of kings an Prince of princes, and it is the obligation Christian disciples to be ambassadors to the nations, the end result will be Christian government (I will explain “government” here in a minute). And the outward result of Christian government will be a plurality of Christian Nations. Pastor and author Doug Wilson calls this Christendom 2.0. Whatever we decide to call it the goal of every Christian should be a Christian society—i.e., a Christian Nation. Which means that Singapore, or the Congo, or Brazil, or Russia, or France, or Turkey could all be Christian Nations; not just the United States of America. Not one country, but many countries recognizing the Lordship of Christ. This is why the LEFT hates it—hates the idea of it—because their version of tolerance is really intolerance of anything that challenges their worldview.
Government and Spheres of Sovereignty (Influence)…
Government is not limited to the national, state or local municipalities. Government is not limited to the civil sphere. This is one area where government is visibly exercised, but it is not the only area. True government starts with the individual, and then works its way into every other institutional area of life. In the Holy Bible, we are taught of three primary governmental spheres of sovereignty (influence) that have been ordained by our Creator: Family, Church, and State. Also known as the Familial, Ecclesiastical, and Civil spheres. We are all taught at an early age to govern ourselves. Again, from a Biblical perspective either we learn to master sin, or it masters us. This is the warning given to Cain, brother of Abel (cf. Gen. 4: ). How we govern our affairs personally (self-control or the lack thereof) will determine our status in the family, church and state.
One of the things that I continually point out is that each God-ordained institution has God-appointed leadership at its top. We live in a hierarchal system, because the Maker of Heaven and Earth is a hierarchal being, and we are His created image bearers (being the lesser). In the family, parents are at the top. In the church the elders are at the top sharing some responsibility with deacons. And, in the state civil magistrates of varying stripes are at the top. To govern is to rule, it is to exercise authority, and each leader within their prospective sphere has jurisdictional authority to govern. Jurisdiction means the authority to speak, or to speak with authority in a particular area of influence; there are limitations to what they can say and where they can say it.
Theocracy & Theonomy…
Both terms are derived from koine Greek. The first, theocracy, speaks of the rule of God (theos = god; kratos (rule) . The second, theonomy, speaks of the law (instruction) of God given in commandments, statutes, and derived principles (theos = god; nomos = law). Both terms are troublesome to people within and outside the Christian camp. Both terms are often misunderstood, and as a result, dismissed with a slight of hand. Before I explain those terms further we need to briefly consider a key subheading that is effected by both.
(subheading) Image Bearers and What they Reflect…
The Bible teaches that all men are image bearers, we are all sinners, and therefore we are all lawbreakers. As image bearers we seek an image to reflect. Originally that image was the Creator God, but because of sin we seek some other to reflect.
How do we reflect something? Well, if I stand in front of a mirror, the mirror reflects my image. If I move my eyebrow, the reflection of me moves its eyebrow. If I raise my arm, the reflection of me raises its arm. If I laugh, the reflection of me laughs. Point being what I do determines how the reflection acts. My mind which drives my motions, brings about the mimicking motion of the reflected image in the mirror.
As image bearers of God we were made to reflect Him. His mind (thoughts) were meant to determine out actions. As His image bearers we were created to think His thoughts after Him. What reflects the mind of God? His Law-Word. Image bearing is an ethical reality. The object of our faith—our God—determines our actions in this world (our behavior: thoughts, words, deeds).
Back to theocracy and theonomy…
What is true of the individual is likewise true of the conglomerate whole; the nation. People may not like the idea of theocratic nation, but all nations are theocratic. All people live in a theocracy (individually and corporately), and all people are governed by the law of their god. Whether it be the God of the Bible, embodied in Jesus Christ; or, some other god/goddesses, even themselves.
Theonomy refers to God’s law. It is His Law-order, or Law-Word. Law is more than just commands, it is the entirety of God’s instruction to His people in His inscripturated word. Regardless of whether or not a person is a Christian or an unbeliever, the fact remains that all people honor someones instructions of right versus wrong, good versus evil, righteousness versus unrighteousness. Just as living in a theocracy is inescapable, so to is it impossible to not be governed by the law of god. The question is who is the god and what is his law?
Sacralism and the Sword…1
The essence of sacralism focuses on the supposed confusion between religious and political concerns. An eroding of the boundary markers between what is spiritual and what is worldly. The blurring of the lines between religious authorities and their jurisdictional powers, and civil authorities and their jurisdictional powers is one of the key fears of sacralism.
There is a jurisdictional separation of the Church and State. That was the original concern of the founders of the United States, and the purpose behind some wanting the 1st amendment on the Bill of Rights. Therefore, a civil officer at any level shouldn’t be allowed (authorized) to be gatekeepers of the sacraments, or to use the penal code to punish matters of the heart/conscience. The role of the civil government (i.e., State government) is to protect good citizens from evil ones. Their office promotes justice by administering proper punishment against criminal activity. And, in the same way an ecclesiastical officer does not have jurisdictional authority to execute matters reserved for the civil sphere alone. Particularly in matters of doctrine as was unfortunately done in the past when such categorical distinctions within those two governing bodies were blurred or erased.
The “sword” in the Bible is used many ways symbolically and literally. One important symbolic sense is in terms of governing authorities and the penal code administered in a particular sphere of influence (cf. Rom. 13:4). In the civil sphere, for example, the sword of vengeance (cf. Rom. 12:19) is levied against violators of the law, with the maximum sentence in certain cases being “life for life” (cf. Deut. 19:21).
The sword in Romans 13:4 is a symbol of judgment by God’s delegated officer in the governing authority that He has ordained. Just as the use of the sword in real life is not always lethal, the same is true in the exercise of it in government. Each governing institution established by God (cf. Rom. 13:1-2) has a tool for judgment, which is essentially what the “sword” (Rom. 13:4) represents. In the family it is the rod (cf. Prov. 13:24), in the church it is the keys (cf. Matt. 16:19; 18:18), but in all instances the purpose is meant to cut off evil from the governing sphere that God has ordained. But as I hinted at above, only the State (civil sphere) has the authority of extinguishing life. All three areas, though, are concerned about loving discipline. The parent seeks to discipline the child so that they do not forget their father’s (Father’s) teaching. The elder seeks to discipline the parishioner so that they do not forget their Father’s teaching. The civil magistrate seeks to discipline so that society does not forget their Father’s teaching.
All of life is ethical, because all of life is religious, because all of life is dictated by God. Now the god of a particular system may be different than the Christian God revealed in the Holy Bible, but there will still be a god and a law-order (i.e., Law-Word) in place that reflects that particular object of faith in every area of life. All government in all its forms has at its base a religion and an ethical system of right and wrong that it legislates within its particular sphere of influence. This is true for the individual, family, church, and state; whether they be atheistic, agnostic, monotheistic, polytheistic, etc….
Closing Remarks…
These are the things that I have touched on in my last four posts (from October until now). I am by no means an expert on these issues, but they are things that I have mulled over for some time. My biggest concern for Christians is that we do not brush aside the idea of Christian Nations because the concept sounds foreign to us. I find that this is the knee-jerk reaction of a number within our camp. Not all of our ideas have been shaped from Scripture or by teachers whose desire is to have their mind conformed by them. In some ways, we suffer from the syncretistic spirit that was revealed in ancient Israel during the period of Judges. My desire in all of this is to educate to the best of my ability why this ideal is not the boogeyman that we are being told that it is; from either side. I hope it helps…
- This section has been edited. I removed a discussion on Two Kingdom theology as this was something that not intended to be a part of this section of the post. In fact, I left out the overall discussion regarding Two Kingdom theology because it is a subject that I have not really discussed here on this blog. I disagree with it and I have some thoughts on the subject as to why it is wrongheaded, but the particulars associated with it do not fit in the section that it was originally seen in. In the future, if time and desire align I may offer my own thoughts on the issue. ↩︎
Kristafal's Musings 