Christian Nationalism

Christian Nations but Not Christian Nationalism?

“Against Christian nationalism, FOR Christian nations.

Nationalism makes the nation-state the ultimate organizing principle, whereas Christianity makes the Kingdom of God the ultimate organizing principle—nations being subsumed under that principle.

Nationalism is the wrong priority. It takes something good (nation) and puts an overemphasis on it such that it supplants the true priority for the Christian (the Kingdom of God).”

Christopher Perone

Of course the key here in learning that Christopher is wrong is the adjective “Christian” that defines the noun “Nationalism.” A Nationalism that was indeed Christian would not be idolatrous and would not do what Mr. Perone describes.

I’m sure that some versions of Nationalism do indeed become a species of Statolatry. However, all because there are some forms of Nationalism that are unbiblical doesn’t mean there are not forms of Nationalism that are Biblical.

Yes, some forms of Nationalism can become idolatrous as they lift the Nation State above God so that in the Nation state we live and move and have our being. In these expressions of idolatrous Nationalism it is often the State as it embodies a particular race of people, that becomes God walking on the earth. However, by definition such an arrangement would not be Christian Nationalism.

What Mr. Perone describes was the Italian and German Nationalism that the fascists were doing during the 1930s. Perhaps even Spain with the rise of Franco would be included here, though that’s more debatable.

This explains why Biblical forms of Nationalism insist that authority be not located in any one Institution (the State) but rather be diffuse being embedded in multiple jurisdictions such as family (Fathers), church (Elders), state (Magistrates), and possibly others. In such Christian Nationalism, God alone is the sovereign authority with each jurisdiction operating under and with His delegated and specific authority. In such Christian Nationalism, there are thus inter-dependent authority centers that serve to delimit the sovereignty of any one authority center thus reducing the capacity for any one authority center to seek to divinize itself as God walking on the earth.

In the end there can be no Christian nations without Christian Nationalism. It’s like arguing for alcohol but without fermenting. If you have a Christian Nation you will have Christian Nationalism just as if you have alcohol you will have fermentation.

Answering the Question for the Political Cesspool Audience; Why is what is Happening in NAPARC important to this National Radio Audience?

Why is the issue of NAPARC churches important to the Political Cesspool Radio audience,

1.) Well, first I would observe that it is strongly possible that at least some of the listeners belong to one of these denominations…. Associate Reformed Presbyterian, Reformed Presbyterian Church North America, Presbyterian Church of America, Orthodox Presbyterian Church. As such they would be interested in what is going on in these denominations. Secondly, even if a listener is not a member of these Churches the Southern Baptist Convention and Doug Wilson’s denomination the CREC is doing much the same thing in opposition to the worldview that is typical of the listeners of this broadcast. So, even though we are talking about NAPARC churches what is going on in those Reformed churches are going on in nearly all the denominations which were at one time thought of as being the conservative expression of Christianity. So, what we are talking about here is the fact that the denominations that we might once thought were safe have shown themselves to have been influenced by the Spirit of the Age… by Cultural Marxism and the listeners here should be aware of that.

2.) Secondly, the reason why this is important to the listeners of the political cesspool is because of the tight connection between cult and culture. Now, the word “cult” has today taken on a negative connotation but historically that is not the case. In historiography, there are no negative connotations to the use of the term cult, and it merely means as coming from the Latin “care, labor; cultivation, culture; worship, reverence, to bind” Now the reason that this is important is that culture is a word etymologically connected to cult and I would argue that a culture is a reflection of the majority cult found among the people. Now, if the previously conservative churches are no longer providing a proper cultus one can not expect the culture to rise higher than the cult. I have a friend who likes to say that the culture is the report card of the church. If the church is where the cult is found and if the cult has gone bad (and it has) then there is not apt to much progress being made in moving the culture in a positive direction. In brief if the cult is bad the culture will be bad. Right now the conservative churches where we once could find the cult being protected and cherished so that it would perfume well the culture now we are finding the cult stinking and so there is little hope for the culture until we get the source of the culture (the cult – Church) right.

3.) Thirdly, there is the reality that what people consume in church as coming from the pulpit and Sunday School is what they are going to live out in their daily lives. I like to say that “if there is a mist in the pulpit there will be a fog in the pew.” If the teaching coming from the pulpit is basically rehashed Cultural Marxism the result will be… a reproduction in the people of the same insipid theology coming from the pulpit. In interacting with clergy I know for a fact that this cultural Marxism has become an ear worm in the Reformed clergy and I think the listeners of the Political Cesspool should know.

4.) Finally, it is important for this audience to know about this because if they are attending one of these churches they need to find out where their particular church stands on the issue of Christian Nationalism / Kinism and if their local church is supporting these denominations financially they need to quit giving to the local church. The Reformed churches will only understand and possibly change if they are kicked in the wallet.

The Historic Baptist Position & Christian Nationalism

Recently, on X I read some Baptists who understand their own Baptist history, again inveighing against Christian Nationalism because they insist that with Christian Nationalism you end up with each generation born being taught they are a Christian people. This is just another version of the Baptist disagreement with infant Baptism. It follows the same dislike that Baptists have of the Reformed believing that their children are in the covenant. A Christian Nation, so the Baptist reasoning goes, requires citizens to accept they are Christian whether they are or not. It is issues like this which is why we routinely say that “Reformed” Baptists are NOT Reformed, and I do not say this as invective but just as fact.

All of this requires some parsing and to that parsing we now turn.

Baptists can not make the distinction between what is true by title and what is true by faith. The objection here boils down to Baptist resistance to the idea of cultural Christianity. In a Christian nation when children are born they are born Christian in the sense of being cultural Christians. The infants being birthed into a family and nation that is Christian in the sense that the the nation is being governed by Christian laws, customs, education, etc. Objectively speaking, the nation is Christian as are its citizens. However, this objective cultural Christianity is not the necessarily the equivalent of those same infants having the union with Christ that is required to be more than a Christian in the sense of being in a nation ruled by Christian laws, customs, and education.

The Reformed has always believed that in the covenant there exists believers who have the substance of the covenant (Christ) and unbelievers who only stand in the covenant in the sense of being administratively connected to the covenant. Reformed Baptists do not believe that anybody is in the covenant of grace except the converted. Because that is true they are as resistant to Christian Nationalism as they are to infant Baptism. This is to be expected because Christian Nationalism really does imply the acceptance of infant baptism as it’s reasoning runs along the same lines.

Now, certainly there are dangers to embracing wrongly both infant Baptism and Christian Nationalism. We and our children need to be constantly reminded that we, each one of us, need to embrace and own the Christian faith for ourselves. We and our children must continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ. We must warn ourselves and our children that while we can be thankful for our Christian heritage we can never believe that our Christian heritage is the equivalent of each one of us being personally united to Christ.

But, we should add, the dangers of Baptist reasoning here are greater than our dangers. First, of all Baptist reasoning here wars against Scripture. Scripture clearly teaches that in the covenant of grace there is a inner and outer aspect to the covenant. There are indeed those who have only tasted the heavenly gift, and who have shared in the Holy Spirit by being around the blessings of being in a covenant home and a Christian nation, and who have tasted the goodness of the word of God but who may well fall away if they do not own Christ.

The second danger of Baptists rejecting the idea of Christian Nationalism is found in the fact that neutrality is not possible. Baptists, not wanting a Christian nation due to how infants will be told they are Christian citizens (even when they may not be Christian in a personal sense) will be left having their own seed being shaped and framed by some other religion. If we will not be a Christian nation comprised of Christian citizens the only other option is that we will be a non-Christian nation comprised of non-Christian citizens being shaped and framed by some non-Christian religion since that non Christian religion will be informing the customs, laws, arts, education of the non-Christian nation. This is what has happened in our own nation as Christians have accepted the premises of Baptists that we should not be a Christian nation. As we have embraced that Baptist nation, increasingly (especially through the 20th century forward) we have become a non-Christian people. Now, that Baptist thinking that refuses the idea of Christian nationalism has reached peak national unraveling as seen in the reality that we are now aiming distinctly at being a multi-religious/ multi-cultural nation. This is turn has led to the reality of white Christian replacement. None of this could have come about without Baptist thinking and the Baptistification of Presbyterianism and Reformed thinking.

So, yes there are dangers to the Christian faith by wrongly embracing Christian nationalism. However, the dangers of having long “rightly” embraced the Baptist refusal of Christian Nationalism now finds the chickens having come home to roost.

Ideas have consequences and that includes Baptist ideas. The idea that a nation could be defined without a religious adjective (Christian, Muslim, Jew, Humanist, Hindu etc.) was errant from jump. We have listened to Roger Williams and the Baptists for too long. It is time to put the Baptist idea of “soul-freedom” in the rearview mirror. This soul-freedom idea had gone so far off the rails that just a few years ago the Southern Baptist convention publicly defended the right of an Islamic society in New Jersey (the Islamic Society of Basking Ridge) to build a house of worship. Baptists, because they opposed Christian Nationalism, publicly defended building a worship center for a anti-Christ faith that hates Christ.

Ideas have consequences.

There is no supporting Christian Nationalism apart from understanding it is a very Presbyterian/Reformed idea. In point of fact if Christian Nationalism was to grow it would entail the growth of historic Presbyterianism / Reformed thought. Right now, finding a Presbyterian that thinks like a Presbyterian is harder to find than a Baptist who believes in infant Baptism. This is because Radical Two Kingdom (R2K) has worked as an Anabaptist body snatcher of historic Reformed thought.

We should gladly note there that there are more than a few Baptists who are felicitously inconsistent with their avowed Baptist convictions. These Baptists do indeed support Christian Nationalism. In my estimation these Baptists have not quite thought through the implications of Christian Nationalism as their non Christian Nationalist Baptist brethren. Still, I am exceedingly glad to work with them on this advocacy.

Pointing Out The Problem with W2K

“It may seem strange to hear, but the distinction between the gospel and the Christian is an important one. Evangelicals, in particular, are accustomed to a type of gospel mindset where everything is a “gospel issue.” But social change does not come directly from the gospel but from the Christians. In a Christian nation, Immigration issues are not determined by the first four books of the New Testament. Instead, they are made by Christians and their families, working through social and political means, ordering the nation to their earthly and heavenly good.”

Unconscionable Blog

I pulled this quote from the link below,

Machen vs Horton – Christian Nationalism

The article is a comparison between Dr. Mike Horton and Dr. J. Gresham Machen on the subject of Christianity and its impact on surrounding social order. It was not a bad piece over all but it still suffers from the wretched 2K philosophy even when warring against Michael Horton R2K / liberalism.

A few observations,

1.) The writers is spot on when he observes that Evangelicals/Reformed want to make everything a “gospel issue.” Everything is not a gospel issue. Now, one can say that everything is an issue to which Christianity as God’s revelation must apply but that is not the same as saying that everything is a gospel issue. The Gospel deals particularly with the question, “How can one escape the just wrath of God against my sin and guilt?” The Gospel does not deal with the question of the criminal penalty for sexual deviancy, as one example, though Christianity does.

2.) The writer notes the distinction between the Gospel and the Christian. Again, he is correct here. The Christian has to evaluate a multitude of questions that are not answered by “the Gospel,” strictly speaking, as noted above. This is important to repeat again because clergy are forever saying that the most abstruse things are “Gospel issues.” Immigration, for example, is not a “Gospel issue,” (the article linked mentions immigration) but it is an issue that the Scripture speaks to and so can be evaluated on that basis upon a close examination of all that Scripture has to say. However, immigration is no more a Gospel issue than what bedtime you set for your children.

3.) Social change does come from Christians as the writer aptly notes but biblical social change only comes from Christians as they are thinking God’s thoughts after Him as revealed in Scripture and the necessary consequences arising from Scripture.

4.) It is true that immigration policy as championed by Christians can not be made solely by consulting the four gospels. However, it is also true that the immigration policy championed by Christians can be made after consulting all of God’s revelation from Genesis to Revelation.

5.) The writer invokes

“Instead, they (decisions on immigration) are made by Christians and their families, working through social and political means, ordering the nation to their earthly and heavenly good.”

The writer is almost correct here but his failing is found in the emanating scent of 2K thinking. Look at what is said about how we need to order the nation to “our earthly and heavenly good.” Now, upon first blush that sounds noble. However, the fly in the ointment here is found in asking the question, “our heavenly and earthly good, by what standard?” You see, W2K (Wolfean 2 Kingdom) and its fanboys will say the standard by which we measure heavenly and earthly good is by the abstract thing called “Natural Law.” A “natural law” that no two Natural Law movements will agree upon. If we are to order the nation to their earthly and heavenly good that can only be done by resorting to the law and to the testimony – to God’s revealed Word.

I am going to end here with an observation about the current W2K movement. I’ve read some of its recent proponents as well as some of its critics through history. I strongly recommend reading Friedrich Julius Stahl on Natural Law. Having done some reading I do not think W2K will be able to seize the conversation and lead the way because it is so utterly contradictory and confusing. You need a Venn diagram to determine what does and does not order a life or social order to a earthly and heavenly good. The way that some matters are declared “strikes” while other matters are called “balls” is mystifying when deciding when a matter is or is not a ordering to a earthly and heavenly good. This is because W2K has no objective standard. They have no “thus saith the Lord.” It is all subjective. This has always been the fault of Natural Law thinking throughout history.

I would recommend reading the linked article. It does a good job demonstrating that Michael Horton is no J. Gresham Machen and that Horton’s view will do for the church what bad views in marriage do for a marriage.

Evidence that the Revolt Against the Managerial Class (in this Case, Clergy) is Beginning

Recent text from a high level white collar professional from the South who is an Elder in a PCA church,

—-

“While I’ve long held out hope, I now see the PCA as a lost cause. My sibling alerted me to the PCA report on Christian Nationalism and correctly described it as ‘Monstrous.’ I’m still working through the report in a detailed fashion and there’s so much objectionable there.

Our PCA Presbytery is very sound and will reject or ignore much of the report. When I was ordained as a RE I took no exceptions to the 1788 WCF because a clear reading of those changes, while somewhat regrettable, in no way provided confessional support for the present day anti-theonomy and anti-ethno nationalism now being rammed down our throats.

For the record, I WILL NOT take any exceptions and DO not agree that my beliefs are out of accord with the PCA constitutional documents.

Looking forward to more of your work on Iron Ink / Rhetoric.”

—

If anyone doubts that the WCF is friendly to theonomy track down the booklet, “Theonomy and the Westminster Confession,” by Martin Foulner.