Recently, I received a request from a High School Sr. who is doing a research project on Christian Nationalism. How a Senior in High School chose an obscure Pastor in Michigan to reach out to finds me perplexed but in the age of social media I suppose anything is possible.
Stephanie wrote asking,
I am using the definition of Christian nationalism given by the Merriam Webster Dictionary which states:
“An ideology calling for a government that incorporates or endorses aspects of Christian religion (as by making decisions, laws, policies, etc., in accordance with Christian beliefs, by engaging in government promotion of Christianity, or by legally enforcing Christian doctrine)”
Is there anything you would add or subtract from this definition?
Pastor Bret responds,
I would only add that all governments without exception incorporate or endorse aspects of some religion.
1.) Governments legislate, adjudicate, and enforce laws
2.) All law is an expression of morality
3.) All morality is based upon religion
4.) All religions serve some God
5.) Hence all governments without exception incorporate or endorse aspects of some religion.
Being a Christian, I merely believe that the Government should incorporate and endorse Biblical Christianity.
Currently, our Nationalism is not Christian Nationalism but polytheistic nationalism. Our current government incorporates and endorses the religion of polytheism. All gods are allowed in the public square except the God of Christianity which proclaims that no other god but Himself should be allowed in the public square. We see this polytheistic Nationalism in our government schools where the God of the Bible is not allowed into the curriculum.
Of course as polytheism is nothing but the gods being a projection of fallen man this means that polytheism and humanism are much the same.
Stephanie asked,
Do you often encounter people with a different definition from this? If so, what looks different?
Pastor Bret responds,
The definition above is not bad understanding that different people will suggest that the Government have different levels of involvement. For example, I am a Christian Nationalist but I still believe there is a distinction (not a separation) between Church and State. Others want to eliminate the distinction altogether. They are indeed Christian Nationalists but not a Christian Nationalism that I would be interested in.
Stephanie asks,
How do you distinguish between Christian politicians and those who seek to legally enforce Christian doctrine?
Pastor Bret responds,
I have no problem legally enforcing Christian doctrine just as the Government today has no problem legally enforcing humanist doctrine. Now, again, as previously mentioned, I do believe that any Christian government would have boundaries as to how far they could go. As a Christian Nationalist I also see the family and the church as having their own proper jurisdictions that the State must not be allowed to meddle in – just as the family jurisdiction and the church jurisdiction must not be allowed to meddle in the jurisdiction of a Christian government. These three jurisdictions, all being under the authority of Sovereign God, would work together in a harmony of interests to advance a Christian social order.
I do not think politicians are particularly Christian who do not seek to legally enforce Christianity. Those types are “Christian” in name only.
S asked,
Do you find it hard to discuss with unbelievers about Christian nationalism?
Pastor Bret responds,
No. Since Jesus Christ is King as well as Savior and Prophet it is a delight to discuss Christ in all of His offices with Christ haters.
S asks,
– What is the hardest part or questions you receive?
Pastor Bret responds,
The hardest part is getting people to understand that all governments incorporate and/or endorse without exception some religion. All governments are religious and as such the fight against Christian Nationalism is at the same time a fight for Humanist Nationalism, or Polytheistic Nationalism, or Islamic Nationalism, or Hindu Nationalism, or Talmudic Nationalism. It is never a question of whether or not a Government is going to be religious. It is only a question of which religion will a government be endorsing or incorporating.
S asks,
What is your strongest biblical support(s) for Christian nationalism?
Pastor Bret responds,
A New Testament Calvin Seminary Reformed theologian, from decades past, Dr. Martin Wyngaarden answers this question for us,
“Now the predicates of the covenant are applied in Isa. 19 to the Gentiles of the future, — “Egypt my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance,” Egypt, the people of “Jehovah of hosts,” (Isa. 19:25) is therefore also expected to live up to the covenant obligations, implied for Jehovah’s people. And Assyria comes under similar obligations and privileges. These nations are representative of the great Gentile world, to which the covenant privileges will, therefore, be extended.”
Martin J. Wyngaarden, The Future of the Kingdom in Prophecy and Fulfillment: A Study of the Scope of “Spiritualization” in Scripture (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2011), p. 94.
And again,
“More than a dozen excellent commentaries could be mentioned that all interpret Israel as thus inclusive of Jew and Gentile, in this verse, — the Gentile adherents thus being merged with the covenant people of Israel, though each nationality remains distinct.”
“For, though Israel is frequently called Jehovah’s People, the work of his hands, his inheritance, yet these three epithets severally are applied not only to Israel, but also to Assyria and to Egypt: “Blessed be Egypt, my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance.” 19:25.
Thus the highest description of Jehovah’s covenant people is applied to Egypt, — “my people,” — showing that the Gentiles will share the covenant blessings, not less than Israel. Yet the several nationalities are here kept distinct, even when Gentiles share, in the covenant blessing, on a level of equality with Israel. Egypt, Assyria, and Israel are not nationally merged. And the same principles, that nationalities are not obliterated, by membership in the covenant, applies, of course, also in the New Testament dispensation.”
Martin Wyngaarden
The Future of the Kingdom in Prophecy and Fulfillment: A Study of the Scope of “Spiritualization” in Scripture — pp. 101-102.
So, I agree with Dr. Wyngaarden that national distinctions, because they are ordained by God, do not go away even into the new Jerusalem. The reasoning is, if they remain present in the New Jerusalem in the New Heavens and earth then who are we to suggest that they are not important today and should be ignored?
But more important than what Dr. Martin Wyngaarden or I think Scripture itself bears out the continued existence of the nations into the new heavens and earth in Revelation 21,
Rev. 21:24 And the nations of those who are saved shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor into it. 25 Its gates shall not be shut at all by day (there shall be no night there). 26 And they shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it.
Here we see the creational distinctions that God ordained in Gen. 10:5, as well as Dt. 32:8, and Acts 17:26 would be perpetually established into the eschaton.
5 From these the coastland peoples of the Gentiles were separated into their lands, everyone according to his language, according to their families, into their nations.
Dt.32:8When the Most High divided their inheritance to the nations,
When He separated the sons of Adam,
He set the boundaries of the peoples
According to the number of the children of Israel.
Acts 17:26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,
S asks,
What is your strongest secular support(s) for christian nationalism? (If applicable)
Pastor Bret responds,
I don’t believe such a thing as “secular” exists. It is a myth. Everything is religious.
S asks,
Why is unity of church and state necessary?
Pastor Bret responds,
I don’t believe in the unity of church and state. I believe in the harmony of interest between church and state and I believe it is necessary because without it there is a conflict of interest baked into the social order which makes for turmoil and social unrest. A nation cannot have a state serving one god and the church serving a different god without there existing significant social unrest.
I am reluctant to talk about the “unity of Church and State” because that is so open to misinterpretation. The Christian state is tasked with one particular responsibility under the sovereign Christ and that is to bring justice while the Christian church is tasked with another particular responsibility under the sovereign Christ and that is to herald the grace of God found in Jesus Christ by opening and shutting the Kingdom of God.
So, there is a harmony of interests between Church and State but there is no unity in the sense of uniformity between the two.
S asks,
– How do you see society falling away from this unity, if at all?
Pastor Bret responds,
There is little falling away today from the uniformity of the Church and State. The Church in America has largely, exceptions notwithstanding, reinterpreted Christianity in terms of the humanism that is the religious expression that the State supports in its legislation and policy.
S asks,
– How do you see it uniting, if at all?
Pastor Bret responds,
As I said, we already have a unity between church and state. This is seen in the government schools serving as the Church for the sake of the state. But even if you’re talking about “Christian” churches, most of those Churches no longer practice historic Christianity. They have compromised with the spirit of the age in order to build large congregations.
The only way that there can once again be a harmony of interests between a Christian State and a Christian church such as we find in Scripture is by God being pleased to send Reformation in our society as combined with men willing to be magistrates and Christian Princes who will enforce Christian law and justice upon a Reformed people.
S asks,
What counterargument do you find most challenging? (If applicable)
Pastor Bret responds,
There is no counter-argument to Christian nationalism. Not even the founders sought a counter argument to Christian Nationalism. At the time of the War for Independence 9 of the 13 colonies had established churches. The War did not change that. The only thing that the founding did was to provide a path whereby the Federal Government would not be choosing which flavor of Christianity (which denomination) all of the states had to embrace. The States were allowed and most did pursue explicit Christian language in their state documents.
S asks
– How do you respond to this argument?
The counterargument I receive most often is that Christian nationalism is unconstitutional because it does not allow for freedom of religion.
– How would you respond to this?
Pastor Bret responds,
I respond by saying that freedom of religion is a myth. We do not have freedom of religion now. I know this because my religion teaches that only the God of the Bible should be allowed into the public square and yet my religion does not have the Freedom to follow that principle. So, there is only freedom of religion for those who believe in polytheism. There is no freedom of religion for people who believe that their God being the only God should have the preeminence. Instead the gods of polytheism have the preeminence.
S asks,
– How can I be better prepared to answer this?
Pastor Bret responds,
Read the book,
“The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States” by Benjamin Morris.
