Here we continue our series on Dr. Alan Strange’s podcasts concerning the depredations on the idea of Christian Nationalism (CN). I anticipate one more entry in order to finish this series.
Some have complained to me that I labeled Dr. Strange as a man of the left. I can come to no other conclusion about any man, despite their orthodoxy on any number of other subjects, that he is a man of the left when eschewing the idea of the explicit Lordship of Jesus Christ over a nation. Consider, as there is no such thing as neutrality, when one declaims against Christian nationalism the only options that remain is support for a nationalism that is driven by some anti-Christian religion or a internationalism that is driven by anti-Christ religion. (It is not possible for internationalism to be Christian.) Dr. Strange, and the other numberless hordes (Owen Strachan, R. Scott Clark, David Van Drunen, etc.) who are classical liberals are being driven by their Enlightenment faith and so can be considered nothing but “men of the left.” There is more of Robespierre, Danton, and Marat about these “Christian” men then there is Jesus Christ when it comes to their political theory. Hence, this is why I insist that Dr. Alan Strange is a man of the left.
Now to interact with Dr. Strange’s final podcast denigrating of Christian Nationalism;
1.) Strange, first lists his concern about the issue of how Christian Nationalism would imply coercion. This is true. Christian Nationalism would require coercion. Just as we Christians today, in the classical liberal model, are being coerced on any number of fronts to support our current state religion. Christians are being coerced to pay taxes to support the murder of the unborn, the murder of countless peoples in other lands because of our NWO guided military, the continued existence of our anti-Christ government schools and countless other projects. All governments are driven and inspired by a faith/religion vision and all governments in turn coerce people to salute that faith/religion vision. Christian Nationalism would be no different. We would coerce people — not to be Christian (only the Holy Spirit can do that) — but to operate within the confines of a Biblical Worldview and social order.
So, Strange, laments the possibility of coercion in the context of Christian Nationalism yet apparently he is willing not to lift his voice and do something about Christians being coerced to serve the agenda of our current state religion as it serves the gods of humanism. In the final analysis, when it comes to Governments, it is either coerce or be coerced. As Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, I have no problem saying, “Yes, Christian Nationalism would mean coercion.”
2.) Strange next insists that CN wrongly uses Scripture. This is basically a “anti-theonomy” argument. Now I agree with Strange that the Bible does not give us an exhaustive blue print for how social-orders are to be governed today. I do not believe that we should seek to repristinate OT Israel’s social order. However, I strongly disagree with Strange that the Scripture doesn’t speak to issues like proper tax rates (Strange mentions this). So, I agree with Strange that every political/social order issue can not be resolved with a “thus saith the Lord.” However, I disagree with Strange that many many political/social order issues couldn’t be resolved with a “thus saith the Lord.” For example, I do believe we should take the Scripture seriously that talks about taxation, that insists that a man should not dress like a woman, nor a woman like a man, that Magistrates should not have the capability to wage offensive wars, that Magistrates should be required to write out God’s law, etc. etc. etc. Strange’s strongly anti-theonomic position inevitably leads to “each man doing what is right in his own eyes.” It is a recipe for humanism.
3.) Strange, using an illustration for his position, next argues that the Scripture has nothing to say on whether or not the State should provide health care. This is a classic example of Strange being on the left. Scripture clearly denounces theft and the State cannot be involved in providing health care without stealing from the citizenry. State funded health care is anti-Christ and Christians should look with suspicion upon “Christians” who think like Strange. I don’t want to get too deeply in the weeds here but it is the jurisdiction of the family, and not the state to provide health care. Secondly, the prices of health care skyrocket when the state becomes the benefactor for health care. State funded health-care is not Christian.
4.) Strange next compares CN with Socialism and Communism by saying that his CN friends say “well, CN has never worked because it has never been tried by the right people.” Strange notes that is the same kind of logic that the Christian Utopians, Socialists and Communists use. I agree that is terrible logic. CN is never going to bring in Nirvana and that shouldn’t be our expectation. However, contrary to Strange the question isn’t “will CN bring in Shangri-La,” the question is will CN be closer to a God honoring social-order than other political/social-order arrangements that are decidedly anti-Christ? (Understanding that all other political/social-order arrangements that are not CN will be anti-Christ — no neutrality.) The answer there is clearly and unequivocally “yes.” I would rather live with the follies of a Cromwell or Charlemagne or Alfred the Great than the follies of a Stalin, Mao, or Obama.
5.) Strange then agrees with another chap (John Ehrett) who insists that Dr. Stephen Wolfe’s CN sounds more like Nietzsche than it does Christ. I have dissected that critique here;
McAtee Defends Stephen Wolfe Against Ehrett