Image: "Beginning of the End", 2009, near Bar Harbor, Me
More and more we are hearing "Christian Nationalism" being bantered about in a vaguely dismissive and smearing manner. It seems that anytime a person mentions politics or law, and God in the same breath they are immediately lumped into the same category as rabid zealots seeking to tear down the constitutional separations and bring back the inquisition.
Yet, we have to admit, that some Christians have gone way over the line in identifying their support for President Trump and his "MAGA" agenda as being almost messianic in its essence. It is always problematic to anoint a politician with holy oil. To declare that a particular legislative or political agenda as being "God's will" must conform to very stringent criteria before any Christian, or the Church as a whole should buy into it. Furthermore, Christians have been too quick to equate "Americanism" with Christianity, either in its origins, its history, or its declarations.
First, let me attempt to define "Christian Nationalism" as it is manifested in our current circumstances.
Michelle Goldberg invented the term in her 2006 book "Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism". Goldberg used the term to describe people who think this way:
“Christian nationalists believe in a revisionist history, which holds that the founders were devout Christians who never intended to create a secular republic; separation of church and state, according to this history, is a fraud perpetrated by God-hating subversives … The goal of Christian nationalist politics is the restoration of the imagined Christian nation.”
This is a reductionist formulation to say the very least. However, if it was universally adopted then it could only be consistently applied to a very narrow segment of American Christianity. In application, modern leftists have sought to caricature every Christian attempt to influence policies and laws (e.g. abortion laws) in a manner consistent with Biblical principles as bowing to this "Christian Nationalist" creed.
Ralph Drollinger and the organization "Capitol Ministries" has published a paper called "Better Understanding the Fallacy of Christian Nationalism." [Link Here] This paper furnishes some good background for understanding the various approaches Christian political activism or exhortation may take and clearly states that not all such attempts should be called "Christian Nationalism". However, this paper errs, in my opinion, in its conclusions about how Christians should think about the whole subject. After essentially defining Christian Nationalism as the sum of its individual components (Dominionism, Reconstructionism, and Theonomic Importation), the paper concludes that the "only" use of Christian doctrine that should be advanced into the political/legislative sphere is the "Moral Law of the OT" because it is "a reliable informant for civil government leaders in their lawmaking." The authors advance this idea because this Moral Law is "installed in everyone He has created" as a "conscience chip" written on our hearts.
Thus, these authors essentially say that Christians have common ground with Pagan unbelievers because we all have the "law" written on our hearts and thus reason can build on this common ground and Christians can influence government without actually prophetically speaking to it. There is no room, in this view, for "Thus saith the Lord." I find this analysis more disturbing than Goldberg's. At least, in her formulations, there is no blurring of the issues.
I would propose the following definition for how "Christian Nationalism" ought to be understood.
Christian Nationalism is a perspective that calls for an activist proclamation of the Christian world view into the public sphere with the goal of exhorting laws or policies which are more consistent with that view, as well as prophetically reminding those in government that they are responsible to God for their conduct in office, specifically in that they are to promote justice as Biblically understood.
Let's add clarity by analyzing the terms:
"Nationalism" is used to speak of a distinct cultural social order wherein members of that order identify with it as well as participate in its goals and activities.
"Christian" is used, in this context, to speak of a comprehensive, over-arching framework for viewing all things through the lens of Biblical Christian teaching. It is characterized by a reliance on the authority of Scripture as superior to all other foundations of reasoning. It does not deny natural revelation but it subordinates any interpretation of natural revelation to Scripture, rightly understood.
This view, though it does not embrace "Dominionism, Reconstructionism, and Theonomic Importation" as Drollinger, et al, define them, does recognize that not everything that the proponents of those views said is inherently wrong. Nor does this view accept Goldberg's narrow characterization. Though every world-view, including Christianity, reflects a spectrum of opinion, her definition is only true for a fairly radical fringe in Christianity. True Christian Nationalism, or perhaps Christian Political Activism, does not equate the United States to the Israel of God or even as a nation particularly beloved of God beyond all others. True Christian Nationalism believes that this is a nation "under God" and accountable to Him. Since this is true for every political magistrate and authority, of whatever nation, then this does not equate to a narrow view of American exceptionalism in a religious sense though "exceptionalism" in a political/historical sense may very well be in order.
Second, let's consider the following quote:
Every social order rests on a creed, on a concept of life and law, and represents a religion in action. Culture is religion externalized. [reference, pg. 219]
Now the author of this statement is not highly regarded in modern Christian circles but perhaps this statement ought to be given some consideration.
First of all, its truth appears to be self-evident. Though some may dispute whether a God-less social order "represents a religion in action", all that is needed is to replace the word "religion" with "practical philosophy" and it fits. What the author declares is that there is no such thing as a "value-neutral" social order. Life, in community, is constrained by that community in a thousand different ways, not all of which are verbalized or even consciously held. Every person born into society is socialized according to the mores and values of that social order. The implicit notions of what constitutes life, the goal of life, the practice of life, etc. are part and parcel of that social order.
As such we can see that other than quibbles about words, each social order is a religion in action. Its members conform to the common expectations or are marginalized or institutionalized. Thus American Nationalism seeks to influence that social order so as to move its "religion in action" along more Christian pathways.
This does not mean that this action, in and of itself, is evangelistic. If anything it is more apologetic. It does not promise salvation if the culture does move in the directions it advances. It simply understands that such directions are more pleasing to God than their opposites would be.
Second, it must be said out front that all such endeavors presuppose that the Christian will be in conflict with the social order. The social institutions of any secular culture are controlled by the Satanic "principalities and powers" which are diabolically used to suppress the truth of Christ. However, every institution is made up of people and therefore the Christian Nationalist seeks to undermine the Satanic agenda wherever it is encountered. Thus questions of pragmatic "best methods" in finance, administration, etc. which do not directly endanger a Christian worldview, are understood as areas where common-cause can be won.
However, where there is a distinct moral component that runs counter to that Christian world view, then it is the duty of the Christian to oppose it in a distinctly Christian manner. The sovereignty of God over all human endeavors must be acknowledged by the Christian as a core aspect of his/her actions and statements.
So, I believe there is ground for Christian activism in all spheres of the social order including the political. I do not believe we should ever equate "Americanism" with Christian Nationalism but neither do I believe that Christians can rely only on some "common ground" with non-Christians for advocating only moral law issues.
This is not the place for a more definitive discussion of the Christian Worldview. That is a far more extensive topic. If any reader has a question about some aspect of that worldview, it might prompt some further elaboration.
1 Thessalonians 3:1 - 4:12: This Is God's Will... For You!
Image: "Potential Beauty", 2021, Hellebore, Severna Park, Md
1 Thessalonians 3:3–4 that no one should be shaken by these afflictions; for you, yourselves know that we are appointed to this. 4 For, in fact, we told you before when we were with you that we would suffer tribulation, just as it happened, and you know.
1 Thessalonians 3:8 For now we live, if you stand fast in the Lord.
1 Thessalonians 4:1–3 Finally then, brethren, we urge and exhort in the Lord Jesus that you should abound more and more, just as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God; 2 for you know what commandments we gave you through the Lord Jesus. 3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification: ...
1 Thessalonians 4:7–8 For God did not call us to uncleanness but in holiness. 8 Therefore he who rejects this does not reject man, but God, who has also given us His Holy Spirit.
_____________________________________________________________________
It is a matter of some astonishment, how plainly and practically God communicates with us. Yes, there are sublime depths to His word that no mere mortal can ever plumb, at least in this life. He causes us to rise on the wings of eagles (Isa. 40:31) as we ponder the depths of His love, the surpassing excellence of His purposes, and the awesome extent of His power. Like some of those monks who spent their lives in monasteries, fasting and praying and meditating, we could spend years in mental and spiritual seclusion, seeking and perhaps finding a degree of ecstasy in the process.
But God will not have that. His plans are for us to "soar a little, serve a little" (to suborn a silly song). God's will for our lives is that we are to live in the "real world", fallen as it is, frustrating as it is, discouraging as it is, in such a manner as to make a difference. His purpose for our lives is directed toward how we live, not in our gaining some ethereal, near-mystical, piety.
How much clearer can He be than what is expressed in these verses?
For this is the will of God, your sanctification: ... (4:3)
God did not call us to uncleanness but in holiness... (4:8)
Paul goes even further. Any person who rejects this teaching is not rejecting Paul but God Who sent him and inspired him. That should get our attention.
Paul gives us some particular examples of what this should mean. In 3:13 Paul exhorts the Thessalonians to "abound in love to one another" unto the end that their hearts would be "blameless in holiness ... at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ..." He calls them and us to "abstain from sexual immorality" and turn away from the sordid passions that were so prevalent in that society. We should note that this depravity is still all around us. He teaches us that we must be scrupulously honest in our business transactions, even to our own hurt. He calls us to aspire to a quiet life... to mind our own business... to work with our own hands... and walk properly toward all men, even those "outside." (4:10-12)
This is about as clear as anything can be. It's not rocket science. it's not some tediously involved philosophical treatise. it is a plain picture of a plain life... a life that is growing in sanctification and illustrative of the witness God desires to be furnished by His people.
What God is here commanding is an attitude toward right and wrong. Paul tells the Thessalonians that he doesn't want them to be discouraged (3:3) by the afflictions that he was suffering. He was worried that they might see what he was enduring and somehow think that there must not be any truth to what he had taught them. Their reasoning would have been straightforward: If what Paul taught was true then why would the Christ he proclaimed allow these things to happen to him? It's a thought process that is not uncommon even today.
Paul says to "stand fast", don't weaken (3:8). They must know that he was "appointed for this" even as he had previously told them. And how would they "stand fast?" It would be by a renewed antipathy toward the degrading sexual practices in which they were immersed. It would be by pursuing a sincere and passionate love for their brothers and sisters in the faith so that they would discover a new joy, completeness, quality of life, that would make that life found "outside" appear repulsive.
But most of all, they would stand fast if they understood that purity before God was what God deserved from them. They should understand the pursuit of holiness as the simple reflection of a heart's desire to please its master. (4:1)
Jesus taught that His yoke was easy and His burden was light. This is what sanctification really entails. It is not a giving up of joys and pleasure at all. it is replacing old sordid pleasures with new ones that remove any passing desire to go back. Think of a man growing up in the trash dumps of India (they are hideous) who fought starvation by eating half-rotten food other people had discarded. He might, at the time, have gotten some pleasure from eating those things. But then, if he was invited to a feast and was given well-prepared and delicious dishes, would he have any desire to return to the trash heap? I don't think so unless he was truly depraved.
So it is with God. He desires our sanctification because it not only brings glory to His name but it also is the pathway for our greatest delight and well-being. What He commands is our blessing. Let us fortify our will to be ever more concerned to reject the various practices the world about us commends. Those things are not God's will for us. His will is for our holiness and He is worth whatever effort it calls forth in us to pursue it.
Posted by Gadfly on February 27, 2021 at 10:16 AM in Christian Apologetics, Commentary, Culture, Movies, etc., Devotional Meditation, Discipleship, Ethics, Human Interest, Moral Issues, Sanctification | Permalink | Comments (0)
Reblog (0) | | | |
| Save to del.icio.us