“They open their breasts, while they are alive, and take out the hearts and entrails, and burn the said entrails and hearts before the idols, offering that smoke in sacrifice to them”
Hernan Cortes
Writing of the Aztecs
One bromide that those who oppose Christian Nationalism routinely reach for is the horror of the idea that Christian Nationalists would bring in forced conversions. I want to go on record as saying I have no problem with forced conversions to Christianity as long as we understand what we mean by the phrase “forced conversions.”
There are two ways to look at conversion. On a societal / cultural level when dealing with peoples like the Aztecs mentioned in the opening quote then forced conversion is the only option for a compassionate and God fearing people. Forced conversion at this level should be seen as conversion in an objective sense. This kind of conversion is the bringing in of a Christian law order by the sword that would force a previously wicked people to live under the terms of God’s law on a societal basis. Force would be used to bring in order and righteousness with God’s law in its political use leading the way. In the Aztec example above, sacrifices to the gods would end, laws against sundry sexual perversion would be enforced upon pain of death, property rights would be recognized and people forced to attend worship services.
Now, there can be no doubt whatsoever that most of the people that are being forced into this kind of conversion to Christian social dogmas and order would be converted in a subjective sense of the Holy Spirit taking from them a heart of stone and giving them a heart of flesh but they would be converted in the sense that publicly they would not longer have a social order based on false gods. That kind of conversion would be a positive good think even if there was a need for heart conversion that would be betters still.
This kind of forced conversion by the sword would also have the advantage of preparing the social order for the presence of the Gospel being proclaimed. For example, those people freed by Cortez from the gods of the Aztecs would clearly be more open to owning a Gospel proclamation. Likewise Missionaries would have a more free opportunity to set forth the glories of Christ to a people subjugated by the Christian sword. Those Missionaries would not find their own lives in jeopardy for merely bringing the good news of Jesus Christ to a people long under the tyranny of false gods.
The ideal in forced conversions would be that the change that arrived in a massive social order change brought by the sword would open up opportunities for what we are calling “subjective conversions.” So, objectively the social order is forced to convert to Christ in the sense that the old gods are not allowed to be served, a new law order system is implemented, and the macro structures of society are changed thus making room for subjective conversions wherein people are now gladly forced to convert by the Holy Spirit’s irresistible work of regeneration.
So, mark me down as someone who has no problems with “forced conversions.” Indeed, it is my prayer that forced conversion would be brought to our formerly Christian culture. I would be delighted if Abortion clinics were forced to close down because of a policy of forced conversions. I would be delighted if idols to false gods would not be set up in our capitals across the nation because of forced conversion. I would revel in the Lord’s Day being reconstituted consistent with Blue Laws by means of forced conversion. I would rejoice if because of forced conversion a law order was established that made criminal tattooing, piercing, aborting, and soliciting for Prostitution. Now, even if that happened here I still would understand that the heart is desperately wicked beyond all things and that as such the heart would have to be reached in a way that the sword could not accomplish but that reality doesn’t make the idea of “forced conversions” a bad idea.
Also, we should state that all law orders are examples of forced conversions. There are many things our current State does that yield routine forced conversion to idol gods. The people who decry the possibility of Christianity using the sword for conversion don’t mind the sword being used to convert the majority of America’s children to a false religion via the requirements of the law for the education of children. Christians are forced, at the point of a sword, to pay taxes for all kinds of things that belong to the bailiwick of false gods that are forcefully imposed upon this nation and work to keep it worshiping false gods.
Finally, it seems to be the case that only Christians have a problem with forced conversions. This may be due to the incredible pietistic influence on the Christian faith. Christians in the West today are not realistic as to the way the world works. Christians are scared to death of the idea of using power in a righteous way. Indeed, Christians tend to think that Christians having and using power is automatically an evil thing. Now, to be sure, Christians having and using power can be an evil thing but it is not necessarily an evil thing and Christians should once again contemplate the honor to Christ it might be to wield power in a Christ like fashion.
The idea of converting by the sword means that you make the adherents of the false gods be martyrs to their false gods. It is not automatically virtuous to be the only ones ever dying for their God, as Christians seem to think.
If Charlemagne and Cromwell had no problem conquering by the sword than neither do I.
… “Also, we should state that all law orders are examples of forced conversions.”
Whatever law order is in effect, that indicates the reigning god of the system. Will it be Jehovah’s Christ or the idols of the nations? And let us note that pluralism is just another word for polytheism, AKA, “Christ among the gods” as just one of many choices, all equally valid.
Pluralism = the one state policy that allows for many gods.
Where did the idea that all conquest is a violation of others’ sovereignty come from? It seems like it would be an enlightenment idea, but I don’t know who to trace it to.
It could be argued that lawful conquest is an implication of the dominion mandate–if one is to be fruitful, fill the earth, and exercise just stewardship over it in a fallen world there will be conflict with those who abandon or undermine justice in dealing with the earth or its inhabitants. It is also implied in the Great Commission and Jesus’s promise to reign until all His enemies have been put under His and the Bride’s feet.
“Thy will be done on earth, as it is in Heaven.”
The problems, it seems to me, are at least twofold. The first isn’t a logical barrier, but a practical one. The second has to do with ensure just action.
1. Christians will never accomplish conquest (evangelistic or by the sword) without some stain of sin, and so the scorn of unbelievers will always be merited in some respects. But inconsistent movement toward universal holiness is vastly superior to rank rebellion and the more the Law of God is held in high regard the less injustices there will be. A proper balance of meekness, godly sorrow over sin, and courageous resolve to pursue the Good in the face of scorn seem essential to prevent Christians from losing heart or being deceived. Am I missing something here?
2. To what extent does “ordered loves” cause a Christian government to refrain from conquest in order to secure its own? Or, to put it more generally, what are the standards and rules for engaging in just conquest of another people/tribe/tongue/nation etc.?
Hello Joshua
IMO the complaint about forced Christian conversion is what one expects as a tactic that is used by the enemies of Christianity used in order to parlay into a successful transition into their own conversion of Christians and Christianity from being the majority report. What better way to stymie Christians from total conquering than to argue…. “that’s not fair.” Then when the enemies of Christ reach the ascendency then the conquering of Christians is not a problem though that explicit language will not be used.
It is also part of the falsity of the “freedom of religion,” argument. There is the myth that we are a land where are religions can prosper. Of course Christianity is not one of those religions as it cannot prosper in that environment with its claims of exclusivity and totalistic hegemony.
I don’t think you are missing anything in your #1. Obviously forced conversions is not going to go off without a hitch. No program of pursued holiness will go w/o Christians sinning in the pursuit.
The standards and rules for engaging in just conquest might be part of what we find in just war theory coming from Augustine and Aquinas and others. At least we could start there.
I agree that most Christians are allergic to the idea of governments being Christian in nature and using governing power to enforce external conformity to Christian law. Pietism has gone deep into the bones of Western Christianity, such that thinking in terms of how to wisely and justly use cultural hegemony doesn’t even register.
It does seem that many “conservative” liberals are seeing how Christianity is responsible for the blessings of Western law and culture, which has given some hearing to the ideas of a Christian State, although I don’t think most are willing to give up on classical liberalism and recognize the inescapability of theocratic rule–which God/gods, not whether God/gods.
Of course, God’s people only conquer rightly when they conquer by faith in His might, rather than by trusting in chariots of Egypt. It is often the smaller, but faithful Christian cohort that overcomes the larger, more earthly powerful enemy–and not always by an obvious use of arms. And for now the Church that desires to be faithful in upholding God’s law is so small and hated right now that it is more likely to be called to a witness of martyrdom than to conquest. But as God pleases. We don’t get to pick our part in the story, but we do get a chance to be faithful in the part we’ve been given.
Agreed!
We are more likely to experience martyrdom in pursuit of dominion right now as opposed to bringing Christian force to bear on the enemies to Christ.
“Supporters of the so-called pseudo-volkisch movement emphasize again and again that they will, in no circumstances, adopt the use of negative criticism, but will engage only in constructive work. That is nothing but puerile chatter … for a Weltanschauung is intolerant, and cannot permit another to exist side by side with it. … The same holds true of religions. Christianity was not content with erecting an altar of its own. It had first to destroy the pagan altars. It was only by virtue of this passionate intolerance that an apodictic faith could grow up, and intolerance is an indispensable condition for the growth of such a faith.” p. 308.
Murphy translation