Christian Nationalism & The Use of Force

“God’s law, and the punitive stipulations attached to it have never been rescinded.

The Gospel is to preached to all men. Those whom God has chosen from eternity will hear and believe.

God’s law is to be applied and upheld in every sphere of man’s endeavor. It is not meant to convert but to control the lawless and when necessary remove them from society. The state wields the sword and enforces the law but it must do so in submission to Christ the King.

The failure of the church to operate as described above is testimony to effeminacy. It is anti Christ.”

Mark Chambers 

This is the answer to the old canard from “Christians” insisting that Christian Nationalism (CN) should not be supported by Christians  because it implies the use of force. The argument is that CN is not legitimate because nobody can be forced to convert.

To the contrary CN can and should use force upon people in order to be installed. People have to realize that the force that CN must and should us is not intended to convert people, but rather force is intended to make the lawless respect the King’s law. Whether they will convert or not is the work of the Holy Spirit in the context of the preaching of the Gospel. That people will be forced to obey is the work of the Christian magistrates sword.

As such there is nothing desultory and there is no degradation to a Christianity which uses force to make people outwardly conform to the law of God, even if inwardly those people hate doing so. We do it all the time. We used force to make sure that people who might want to murder, rape, and steal don’t murder, rape, and steal. The fact that they are not doing the murdering, raping, and stealing that they might otherwise do if force wasn’t promised against them if they did so may make them hypocrites but that is irrelevant as to living in a social order within the bonds of God’s law.
They may secretly desire to disobey that which they are being forced to obey but they don’t and they don’t for the fear of force used against them if they do. That is a good thing.

The above explains how CN is not inconsistent with the usage of force. It is true that force can’t convert people but that is not it’s intent. The intent of force is have people obey God’s law outwardly whether they want to or not. And that would be a good thing.

The usage of force in the rise of CN is no different than the usage of force in a Christian family. 12 y/o Johnny may not like any number of the family rules but force will make sure that Johnny complies. Now, to be sure, the hope is that Johnny will one day enjoy and own the family rules but until that day arrives little Johnny is kept in line by the promises of consequences (force) if he does not comply.

“Christians” who bring up the canard about how the prospect of force in CN make CN a non-starter are not really complaining about the prospect of force. What they are complaining about are laws in God’s gracious Law-Word that they don’t want enforced. If they could force their law on the world (whatever that might be) they would be perfectly fine with force.

Think about it a second…. the Baptists are some of the Christians who are screaming the loudest about how the usage of force is not consistent with Christianity. These Baptists are therefore against CN. However, keep in mind that the pluralism that we have now that is kept as expressive of our social order by force is a pluralism that is an expression of Baptist theology. Pluralism is the child of Anabaptist thinking, so naturally many Baptists  oppose a CN coupled with the usage of force because that would mean the end of their preferred social order (pluralism) which is maintained by force.

In the end, force is an inescapable concept when it comes to how social orders operation. That force will either be put into the service of God’s law or it will be put into the service of some other god’s law (like polytheistic pluralism).

Vivek Ramaswamy On Voting For a Hindu

I asked @VivekGRamaswamy what he would say to Christians who are concerned about voting for a Hindu: “We share the same value set in common…This is a Judeo-Christian nation. I think we need a commander-in-chief who shares those values.”

Glen Beck

1.) This is NOT a Judeo-Christian nation. How could such a monster exist? How could a nation be both characterized by those who hate Jesus the Christ and those who love Jesus the Christ?
This is stupid.

2.) It is literally not possible to own allegiance to different gods (the god of the Hindus and the God of the Bible) and at the same time share the same values. Bearing allegiance to a different God/gods by necessity means having different values.

3.) What we need is a commander in chief who is a descendant of those whom the founders talked of when they wrote the Constitution saying “to us and our descendants.” There were no Hindu Indians at the Constitutional convention(s).

4.) Any Christian who votes for a Hindu, Jew, Humanist, Muslim, or Mormon for any office is committing an act of treason against his Liege-Lord Jesus Christ.

Mike Pence & The Definition of COWARD

When Governor of Indiana, Pence signed into law Indiana Senate Bill 101, titled the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a law in the U.S. state of Indiana, which allows individuals and companies to assert as a defense in legal proceedings that their exercise of religion has been, or is likely to be, substantially burdened. A good bill.

Naturally the pro-sodomites were angered.

Pence lacked the courage of his convictions.

Pence, predictably caved.

Pence then signed a bill intended to provide protections for LGBT customers, employees, and tenants. This was followed by legislation specifying that Indiana Senate Bill 101 does not authorize discrimination against the LBGTQ community. This foul legislation amended Indiana Senate Bill 101 in several ways:

Section 1 of Indiana Senate Bill 50 stated that Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is not an authorization for a “provider” to refuse to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing to an individual on the bases of certain characteristics, including, but not limited to, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity. This section also stated that Indiana’s RFRA is not a defense in a civil action or criminal prosecution for such refusal by a “provider” on the basis of certain characteristics, including, but not limited to, sexual orientation and gender identity.

The LBGTQ+ community emerged from this debacle as a protected class.

Thank you Governor Mike “Judas” Pence.

The Miserable State of the Clergy Seen in the Words of Tim Keller

“I’d rather be in a democracy than a state in which the government is officially Christian. Instead of trying to take power, I think what Christians ought to be doing is trying to renew their churches.”

-Tim Keller, Wall Street Journal
02 September 2022

Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?
 Henry II of England 
 Referring to Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1170 

1.) Understand what Keller has said here. He has said that he would rather be under a government that is non Christian than under a government that is officially Christian. Tim would rather have his magistrates be Christ haters than have magistrates who are in submission to Christ.

2.) Tim talks about how Christians shouldn’t “try to take power.” The question is “take power from whom?” Presumably, in Tim’s world Christians shouldn’t try to take power from non Christians and should be happy to be ruled by Christ-haters.  Has Rev. Keller ever considered that all power is derived from God, hence, godly men must pursue power  in order to honor God using power for righteous and godly ends — something that the Christ-hater can not do if he is consistent with his Christ hating worldview?

3.) You know Tim, it is possible to both try and renew our Churches and in godly ways seek to take power. The right honorable Dr. Rev. Tim Keller posits a false dichotomy when he suggest that Christians have a binary choice wherein they can either take power or they can renew their churches but they can’t do both. Has Tim ever considered that one piece of evidence that Churches are being renewed is that they seek to exercise godly dominion over the state apparatus?

Curtis Dall on His Exploited Father-in-Law

“A few months ago I read the interesting book, ‘When the Cheering Stopped’ by Gene Smith. (Published by William Morrow and Company, New York, 1964). It indicates the necessity of the American people being more adequately protected in the Executive Branch of our government in the event the Chief Executive should become very ill or suddenly incapacitated.

The book throws interesting lights upon the second marriage of President Wilson to Mrs. Edith Galt and to her complete devotion to him over the years; also, how she ran the country for a while when he became ill. In perusing pages 20 to 23, I was intrigued with the treatment of the well-known matter of the “Peck” letters, the numerous letters written to Mrs. Mary Allen Peck (later, Hulbert) by, Woodrow Wilson. Ultimately, Mrs. Hulbert re-assumed the name of Peck, after a divorce…

As I heard the story related, the matter does not center around Mrs. Galt and Mrs. Peck. It indicates to me more as to how Louis Brandeis came to be appointed by Wilson to the U.S. Supreme Court. It centers around Louis Brandeis . . . and illustrates, allegedly so, politics at its best, not women. Woodrow Wilson was often referred to as “Peck’s Bad Boy” before 1913 (page 23) and also whatever the “wits” felt called upon to say about him. That title went back to his days at Princeton. It appeared that Mrs. Peck’s son allegedly got into some financial difficulties in Washington. He needed about $30,000 to get straightened out, but Mrs. Peck did not have that sum of money handy. She allegedly retained Samuel Untermeyer, a powerful New York lawyer, to represent her and help raise the money for her son. The events allegedly proceeded something like this:

An appointment was made at the White House and Mr. Untermeyer called upon President Wilson and presented his client’s case, saying that his client needed money and that for the sum of $250,000 she would return to President Wilson certain letters, or else dispose of them to others.
President Wilson . . . “I haven’t that kind of money, Mr. Untermeyer. Let me think it over. Let’s take up this matter again, say in a week or so, and I will see what I can do.”

Later, at the next meeting, Wilson continued, “Mr. Untermeyer, I cannot come up with $250,000, but I may be able to raise something like $100,000 if that would satisfy your client.”

Mr. Untermeyer “No, Mr. President, that would not satisfy my client, but I have just had an idea … and, well, perhaps, it might be developed into a happy solution. If you indicate to me that you will consider appointing Mr. Louis Brandeis to the Supreme Court, I will then discuss this unfortunate matter of the letters with friends of mine. They might be able to then arrange to settle this matter to the benefit of all parties concerned.”

President Wilson thought over the matter; so did Counsel Untermeyer and his friends. In due course, Louis Brandeis sat on the Supreme Court bench… Soon he was regarded by all as a very able Justice. In the world pro-Zionist movement, he proved an important aggressive figure and exerted great efforts in that connection, both here and abroad.

Curtis B. Dall
FDR, My Exploited FIL — pp.140