This blog serves as an outreach for Pastor Randy Powell of the First Baptist Church of Franklin, PA. Feel free to ask questions or send me an e-mail at pastorpowell@hotmail.com
Having just finished Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted A Faith And Fractured A Nation by Calvin University history professor Kristen Kobes Du Mez, I have a few thoughts:
(1) The overall premise: that where Evangelicalism finds itself today, reveling in Culture Wars and embracing Christian Nationalism (or as she usually terms it, militant patriarchy), is not a fluke but rather the logical outcome of a fifty year trend, is compelling. She backs the thesis up, whether you think the destination is a blessing or a curse for the Church (If you read my blog I don't need to tell you where I stand on these issues), ably tying together strands of culture, politics, and the words and actions of generations of leaders of the Evangelical movement.
(2) While the book contains many examples of men and women claiming to represent God which are cringeworthy, even painful, in how far from biblical ethics and any attempt to model the behavior of Jesus Christ they have strayed, the chapter that hits with the most punch is the sad litany of Evangelical leaders in the last decade that have been shown to be either sexual abusers themselves, or willing to enable and/or cover-up abuse {Chapter 16, Evangelical Mulligans: A History}. This isn't news, the steady drip of new horrific stories has been poured forth for years and shows little sign of abating, but seeing how the individuals and institutions that had played so prominent a role in the earlier chapters largely turned out to be led by hypocrites who preached male leadership and female submission to them while at the same time preying on the vulnerable and protecting monsters, listed one after another in the chapter, is brutal. If you grew up in the Evangelical cultural/religious atmosphere, you will likely find that your heroes have feet of clay, if not worse. It is hard to take the theological claims, especially about the roles of men and women in God's design, of men like John MacArthur or John Piper seriously when looking at their roles in abuse scandals and/or supporting theological allies accused of the most un-Christ-like behavior {Doug Wilson and Mark Driscoll for example}.
(3) A sub-thesis to the overall one is that the current Evangelical state-of-mind is more conditioned by culture than theology. In my experience, this has been proven time after time. Whether the issue is racism, immigration, sex abuse, or materialism (to name but a few issues), there is a disappointingly low willingness on the part of many (those at one or more steps removed from my ministry here, I'm not bashing my own congregation, rather reflecting on conversations in wider contexts) to hear what the Word of God has to say, and instead a willingness to treat its moral commands as a luxury we can't afford in the battles before us.
In the end, even if you are a complementarian (the theology of firm male leadership and female submission exemplified by MacArthur and Piper), and will likely gnash your teeth at Du Mez's egalitarianism, her criticism of this movement's tactics and leadership has a firm basis in history and fact, reading this book will have value for you.
On the other hand, if you've grown frustrated by the state of Evangelicalism, tired of banging your head each time cultural values displace biblical ones in the words and actions of those who proclaim their fealty to the Bible, Jesus and John Wayne won't make that headache go away, but at least you'll understand how and when things went so awry.
John 12:31 Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out.
When you think about it, a blind squirrel would be able to smell where the acorns are, so I'm not sure that this idiom is all that useful. Nevertheless, it came to mind when thinking about this verse. How's that you ask? A valid question. When thinking about the need to remember that Satan has power within this present age, that the kingdoms of this world cannot be sanctified or holy because of that power (and human nature), it made me think of those groups who view government with a jaundiced eye because of that evil influence, which led my mind to the Jehovah's Witnesses. Now, the Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to participate in government because they believe that we are already living in the End Times and thus the world's governments, even your local school board, are controlled by Satan. This belief makes them unlikely candidates to support a 'Christian' Nationalist movement, {That they're a cult and not a part of Christianity being another reason} just for the wrong reasons, hence the blind squirrel. That may have been a long journey for a short reward, but hopefully it has you thinking about the connection between human governments and institutions and Satan. While it is not Christian orthodoxy that they are controlled by Satan, which would necessitate the sort of withdrawal enacted by the JW, it is in keeping with a proper Christian worldview to remember that both corrupted human nature and the influence of spiritually evil powers exists within all human created institutions including governments.
The tie in with 'Christian' Nationalism is thus a fundamental one. It goes to the heart of the question of whether or not a "Christian Nation" is even possible in any generation with any form of government. The answer, when considering these limitations (not to mention Jesus' lack of endorsement of any such project) is a definitive, "No". Thus 'Christian' Nationalism is working against reality, trying to complete a project and erect a system that is impossible given the prevailing conditions. It isn't about hope, it isn't about effort, it isn't about zeal or sacrifice, it just won't work, period. When Christ returns, when he sets up his kingdom here on earth, everything will change, until then we've been given a more a more important mission than trying to build a house of cards.
What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?
Hard to go wrong with quoting C.S. Lewis, so here goes:
“Let him begin by treating patriotism…as a part of his religion. Then let him, under the influence of partisan spirit, come to regard it as the most important part. Then quietly and gradually nurse him on to the stage at which the religion becomes merely a part of the ‘cause’, in which Christianity is valued chiefly because of the excellent arguments it can produce…once you have made the world an end, and faith a means, you have almost won your man, and it makes very little difference what kind of worldly end he is pursuing.” (C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters, 1942, letter 7)
The whole world isn't worth a soul, how can America be?
Are you willing to walk away from living like Jesus in order to 'save' America? Willing to lie, cheat, steal, bully, use violence, accept gross immorality when it comes from 'our team', embrace what-about-isms and hypocrisy, and on and on?
If you are, you're a fool.
Satan is more than happy to trade your usefulness for the Kingdom of God {which any Christian gives up when they embrace immoral behavior, for whatever reason} for such a comparatively worthless prize.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
The 1984 movie, Red Dawn, starring Patrick Swayze, C. Thomas Howell, Charlie Sheen, Lea Thompson, and Jennifer Grey came out when I was 10. Although I didn't see it in the theater (it was PG-13), at some point I watched it on VHS tape (young people, ask your parents what those were), and it blew me away. It became one of my favorite movies, watched over and over against despite the annoying use of "Wolverines!" as the rebel battle cry {being a Spartan fan, you can see how that rankles}. As a kid, I loved the gutsy chest thumping bravado of its message, it fit nicely with the tough guy message that came to me through the movies of Stallone, Schwarzenegger, Van Damme, and the rest.
The thing is, 'Christian' Nationalism tends to treat the mission and methods of the Church like combat. In war, the rules are often bent, if not ignored, victory is the only thing that matters, and the only real concern about the enemy is how to defeat them more quickly. {See for example: the use of torture post 9/11 by American operatives} I can't count how many times those leading this movement have described what they are doing as a 'war' {For which they should apologize to every combat veteran and those whose nation has been invaded; real war is hell}. In fact, we call it a Culture War, and those who fight it on both sides Culture Warriors. And while whatever is happening in America is far short of warfare, thank God, this no-holds barred, anything goes, mentality is not only growing in how many claim it to be necessary, but even in how many champion such methodology is a good in their own right, all in the name of defending God, His Church, and/or Western Civilization.
When we listen to Jesus, however, it becomes clear that they have things upside-down. Far from being called into combat to smash and destroy God's enemies, the Church is called to serve in ways both diverse and humble. The Church is commanded, this is no suggestion, and warned accordingly, that the true measure of its success will be how it responds to, "the least of these."
How about a real-world example involving one of the most contentious political issues of our day (yikes).
What do you see when the news shows a picture of would-be immigrants wading across the Rio Grande? An invading army? An infestation? A threat? Or do you see men, women, and children made in the image of God, desperate and in need, an opportunity to show the love of Christ (most of those coming here are indeed fellow Christians, an additional question of obligation)?
'Christian' Nationalism is telling you to see things on this issue, and many others, through the lens of warfare, Jesus Christ is ordering you to see them with grace and compassion. Choose you this day whom you will serve.
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
In the 1984 movie, The Karate Kid, Mr. Miyagi (played by Pat Morita) tells his student Daniel (played by Ralph Macchio) who still has much to learn about karate, "Daniel-san, must talk. Walk on road, hm? Walk left side, safe. Walk right side, safe. Walk middle, sooner or later, [makes squish gesture] get squish just like grape. Here, karate, same thing. Either you karate do 'yes', or karate do 'no'. You karate do 'guess so', [makes squish gesture] just like grape. Understand?"
I've never tried to learn karate, nor to compete in a tournament against others like Daniel was planning on doing. I have finished five 50k trail races, with another one coming up very soon, and anyone who has done ultra-running can see the point Miyagi is trying to make: some things in life can't be attempted with half measures. I can't imagine trying to run 31 miles without training, without the right gear and fuel along the way, "squish just like grape" sounds about right though.
Christianity requires an even more single-minded, all-in, nothing-held-back, level of commitment than anything else you or I may attempt to accomplish in life. There is no room for split allegiances, no allowances for putting other goals and priorities above our devotion to God.
The second commandment, as listed by Jesus, puts our devotion to God in its full context. When we give God our whole heart, soul, and mind, it doesn't eliminate or even diminish our obligations to other people, it actually enables them. God requires that we treat everyone with love because God is the maker of us all and the redeemer of humanity. We are not allowed to put labels on individuals or groups of people and thus exempt ourselves from loving them (see the Parable of the Good Samaritan for a powerful rebuke of those who think 'neighbor' is limited).
Which brings us to 'Christian' Nationalism which runs afoul of both the greatest and the second greatest commandments. {It isn't the only 'ism' guilty of this flaw} The greatest by diluting our devotion to God, the Gospel, and his Kingdom by putting the interests of a particular country on par with them {If you think 'Christian' Nationalism isn't elevating love of country to this level, you haven't interacted with it in its full form either historically or in America today}, and the second greatest by invariably treating our country's citizens as more worthy of love than 'them'. "America First!", whatever else it may be, cannot be a Christian slogan, nor one which God would approve, as it inherently treats people who don't posses American citizenship as lesser than those who do.
Go ahead and love your country, if you think it is the best country to live in your faith won't have any problem with that opinion. But don't, if you wish to obey the commands of Jesus, act as if Jesus mentioned devotion to country when he spelled out the greatest commandment, and don't commit the sin of treating 'them', whoever you may put in that category, as anything less than your neighbor.
7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
One of the most damaging aspects of 'Christian' Nationalism with respect to evangelism and the integrity of the Gospel is its built in tendency to shout from the rooftops about the sins of 'them' (the political enemies of 'our team'), and at the same time downplay or even cover-up the sins committed by 'us' (the political allies of 'our team'). This rank hypocrisy isn't fooling anyone, and both other Christians who disagree with the favored political stance of the 'Christian' Nationalists and non-believers can readily see it.
The question then becomes, "Why?" Why are 'Christian' Nationalists so concerned with the sins committed by people they don't want to be a part of their group {either because they're Christians who don't think like them about politics, and therefore in their minds not Christians at all, or they're non-believers who aren't acceptable partners in such a 'holy crusade'}, and so unconcerned about the sins committed by the people that belong to their group? The only possible answer is that this is being done in the pursuit of worldly power {and its unholy partners, fame and money}. In order to 'win', morality must be set aside. This not only applies to employing tactics and strategies that would otherwise be called evil {more on that with other texts}, but in this case being hyper-partisan in the use of the moral authority that they supposedly wield on God's behalf.
One of the key things to look for when this is happens is 'what-about-ism'. When a person on 'our team', especially a powerful political leader or influential religious figure, is credibly accused of a deeply disturbing sin, even a heinous crime, the immediate response is to say in essence, "What about that person on the other team who did something else that isn't right?!?!" This of course is a way of avoiding accountability and facing the hard truth that political allies not beholden to the demands of Christian discipleship are only playing lip service to the morality that 'Christian' Nationalists proclaim is essential to the future of America.
In the end, such hypocrisy may help win some elections, but the cost is always high, not only fostering schism and animosity within the body of Christ, but showing non-believers that to 'Christian' Nationalists at least, the sharing of the Gospel and the call to righteous living are commands of less importance {since they're willing to compromise them so thoroughly} than gaining and maintaining power here on earth. Why would they seek salvation from such a Gospel?
But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.
When Peter Jackson adapted one of my favorite books, the LOTR, he and his screenwriters kept a line from Tolkien's The Fellowship of the Ring uttered by Frodo Baggins when he chooses to accept the burden of seeking the ring's destruction in the fires of Mt. Doom: “I will take the Ring", he said, "though I do not know the way.” Frodo was willing to attempt the quest, but he admitted up front that he would need guidance if he had any chance of getting there. The movie version adds a comical note when Frodo leads the Fellowship out of Rivendell asking at the very first fork in the road, "Mordor, Gandalf, is it left or right?"
What has this to do with 'Christian' Nationalism? Everything. As Christians, we already know our destination AND unlike Frodo we know the way to get there. When God established the New Covenant, appointing the Church to be its steward and sending his Spirit to empower it, he also explained in more than sufficient detail how the journey from Dark to Light, Death to Life, Wickedness to Holiness, Fallen Humanity to Christ-likeness, had to be conducted. God's kingdom has to come first, and it has to be pursued with righteousness.
'Christian' Nationalism has this wrong on both fronts. It offers the siren's call of earthly power, of 'winning' here and now, instead of the far more impactful, and difficult, commitment to the Kingdom of God. In fantasy terms, 'Christian' Nationalism is distracted by a side quest, not the true hero's journey, they've embraced Boromir's suggestion to go to Minas Tirith instead of Mordor. In addition, 'Christian' Nationalism subsumes methods beneath goals, embracing such lies of the Devil as, "might makes right", "the ends justify the means", and "fight fire with fire." In nerd terms, they think they can master the Ring and use it for good. Tolkien new better than such nonsense, and so should we.
In the end, the focus of Christians, and the Church MUST be first and foremost the Kingdom of God, the kingdoms of this earth will come and go, but God's kingdom is forever. The means of advancing and supporting that Kingdom MUST be righteous, or they will fail. Any other goal, and any other method is a fool's errand.
The following 'decree' was written by pastor Dutch Sheets, a member of the New Apostolic Reformation, a loosely affiliated group of Charismatic Christians who believe in Dominionism, which in a nutshell is the belief that God has given the Church the authority to take control of the Earth from Satan and we need only claim it. The following prayer thus contains the expected 'name it and claim it' style of some of the Charismatic movement, combined with a stark American 'Christian' Nationalism that venerates the American Constitution to idolatrous levels. My comments interspersed below will be in bold. To view the decree as a pdf: The Watchman Decree
[What is Dominionism? As explained by self-appointed apostle Peter Wagner, a founder of the NAR movement, before his death in 2016, “Dominion has to do with control. Dominion has to do with rulership. Dominion has to do with authority and subduing. And it relates to society. In other words, what the values are in Heaven need to be made manifest on earth. Dominion means being the head and not the tail. Dominion means ruling as kings.”]
WATCHMAN DECREE
As a Patriot of faith, I attest my allegiance first and foremost to the kingdom of God and the Great
Commission. Secondly, I agree to be a watchman over our nation concerning its people and their
rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness—
From the beginning the decree defines a "patriot of faith" as someone who puts allegiance to the Kingdom of God and the Great Commission first, but in the very next sentence that line is blurred beyond recognition. The "Watchman" analogy is taken from Ezekiel 33 where the prophet is told that he must warm his countrymen of impending danger lest their fate be on his head if he keep silent. While it would be an acceptable interpretation of the principle behind this text to say that Christians have a responsibility to warn the Church of impending danger, it is NOT in keeping with Ezekiel's prophecy to say that Christians bear this responsibility for America. Why? Israel was a covenant people, a theocracy, where God had a specific and detailed set of blessings and curses that were derived from the commands the people had agreed to obey. Ezekiel's responsibility flows out of this context. Israel knew what God required of them, their ancestors had committed themselves to obeying it. In the Church Age, God has made no such relationship with ANY nation/country/people. It is clear that the members of the NAR, as 'Christian' Nationalists, have assumed God has indeed made a promise to America akin to that which he made with Israel, unfortunately for them (and the Church, the Gospel, and our nation) scripture makes not such promise...A question that has no answer: When, where, how, and with whom did God make a covenant with America? What are its stipulations, what is demanded of us and what is promised by God? A covenant isn't implied, it has to be spelled out and agreed upon.
In addition, the responsibilities of the Watchman are linked in the decree to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness", things that Ezekiel was most certainly not focused upon nor would they have made any sense to him, for where in this list is righteousness or faith? Already the Declaration of Independence has replaced the Bible as the guide by which we are called to act.
WHEREAS
• we, the Church, are God’s governing Body on the earth
This is the foundational assertion of the text, but it is in no way made in Scripture. Jesus calls his disciples to be "salt and light", to sacrifice and to serve, in no way does he, or any other apostolic source, command the Church to govern the earth. Search in vain for the source of this claim in scripture, it isn't there. This is 'Christian' Nationalism's bold lust for power, power we are not commanded to seek, and power we are not capable of wielding morally. {See: Tolkien's LOTR and what the Ring does to those who think they can wield it for good. Tolkien was a Christian with an orthodox Christian worldview, and it shows.}
• we have been given legal power from heaven and now exercise our authority
Legal power? This seems to be setting the groundwork to place 'Christian' Nationalism above the law in America, ironic given all of the veneration here about the Constitution.
• we are God’s ambassadors and spokespeople over the earth
Even a phrase at first glance like this that seems orthodox has a flaw. The Church is Christ's steward/ambassador on the earth, not over it. Subtle, but it fits the pattern of seeking dominion and power over others.
• through the power of God, we are the world influencers
World influencers? Does God need extra social media likes and clicks? What a strange phrase. The Church is called to do justice and love mercy, what this has to do with being a 'world influencer' is a mystery.
• because of our covenant with God, we are equipped and delegated by Him to destroy every
attempted advance of the enemy,
Again we have a dangerous bit of bravado here. Is the Church capable of overcoming the Gates of Hell, absolutely, Jesus promised that, but that ultimate victory and this bold claim are far apart. The Church (and Christians) will also suffer defeat, persecution, and loss in this world.
Who is the "our" that has a covenant with God? The Christians in America, or America itself? As the text later in the declaration shows, they mean the latter.
WE MAKE OUR DECLARATIONS:
1. We decree that America’s executive branch of government will honor God and defend the
2. We decree that our legislative branch (Congress) will write only laws that are righteous and
constitutional.
Again, righteous laws do NOT equal constitutional laws, although that link is implied strongly here. One can write a constitutional law that falls far short of being righteous, believe me America history has plenty of examples, it can in fact be immoral in every way and pass constitutional muster.
3. We decree that our judicial system will issue rulings that are biblical and constitutional.
The not subtle linkage continues, now biblical and constitutional are together.
4. We declare that we stand against wokeness, the occult and every evil attempt against our
5. We declare and we now take back our God-given freedoms, according to our Constitution.
Which begs the question: Which God-given freedoms found in the Constitution do they not now have?
6. We declare that we take back influence at the local level in our communities.
7. We decree that we take back and permanently control positions of influence and leadership in
each of the *Seven Mountains.
There is a vast difference in a pluralistic society between influence, which all individuals and groups have a right to aspire to, and control that precludes the rights of others. 'Christian' Nationalism isn't the only movement/philosophy seeking such domination over others, but it very clearly is on the list.
8. We decree that the blood of Jesus covers and protects our nation. It protects and separates us
for God.
Where in any orthodox and historic understanding of the work of Christ upon the Cross, of the efficacy of his shed blood, does the idea that Jesus' blood protects our nation, specifically, come from? Are they claiming that Jesus shed his blood for America? For a kingdom of this world? Again, blasphemy is not too strong a term for this. The shed blood of Jesus separates America for God's purposes? Why this nation and not another? Why only this nation? There is a massive prideful exceptionalism at work here.
9. We declare that our nation is energy independent.
Ezekiel is scratching his head at this one. What does being a Watchman on behalf of your people have to do with energy policy? Nothing. Best to move on than ponder why this made the cut.
10. We declare that America is strong spiritually, financially, militarily and technologically.
There are questions about all four of them being true, at times, but especially the first one. America is spiritually strong? By what metric? Declining church attendance and membership? The rampant sexual immorality and materialism among those who call themselves Christians? The willingness of self-professed Christians to violate any and all of God's commands in order to gain the power to 'take back America for God'?... In addition, proclaiming that America's military is part of the equation harkens back to the worst parts of Church History: The Crusades and the Thirty Years War.
11. We decree that evil carries no power, authority or rights in our land nor over our people.
And yet it most clearly does. America is a far more violent nation that fellow Western democracies, to name one way in which evil is more than comfortable in this land.
12. We decree that we will operate in unity, going beyond denominational lines in order to
accomplish the purposes of God for our nation.
I can actually get behind this one. I'm all for ecumenical efforts to do Kingdom work, if only they meant this about things other than 'winning' the Culture War and crushing their enemies.
13. And we decree that AMERICA SHALL BE SAVED!
Again, in what portion of scripture is this folly grounded? America doesn't need to be saved because America is a nation not a person. Millions of its people need to be saved because they are not in relationship with God through Christ, but that is not what they're talking about here at all. If the preamble declaring loyalty to the Kingdom of God first meant anything at all, #13 would never have been written. If you watch the video, this line is shrieked with fierce intensity. This is the sad truth of 'Christian' Nationalism, the nation's success is the only thing that truly calls forth passion and sacrifice (or violence, the sacrifice is often asked of others).
America, in fact, cannot be saved. Not a single kingdom of this world will continue after the return of Christ. When Jesus establishes his kingdom each and every nation on the planet will be obsolete. In reality, we have no idea when that day will come, and the United States of America may be just as much a distant memory as the Byzantine Empire by that point. It may sound like a broken record, but God's purpose in this world is NOT to elevate America, if the Kingdom of God advances while America teeters and falls, so be it. The prayer is 'thy kingdom come, thy will be done,' not 'our kingdom win, no matter what it costs.'
We know this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.
We know the truth; therefore, we stand for truth and will NEVER be deceived!
The endless debate about how much of America's founding is connected to Judeo-Christian principles, as opposed to the also influential Enlightenment, for example, is a red herring that nevertheless invokes strong passions and anger.
We will NEVER stop fighting!
We will NEVER, EVER, EVER give up or give in!
And if this isn't God's will, what then? Is the only path forward for the Kingdom to fight?? What if this never ending fight is ruining the witness of the Gospel (hint: it already is), must the fight continue no matter the cost?
We WILL take our country back.
Who has the country now? How will we know when 'we' have it back? If our team controls the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court, is the war over? FYI, this happened between 2016-2018, and yet the Culture War continued to rage, the warning that 'they' were coming to get 'us' and destroy America didn't slack one bit. 'We' won elections, and yet the war continues unabated, how can this be when political power is the end to which immoral means are being excused?
We WILL honor the ONE TRUE GOD, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob!
Good, please do. While you're at it, read his book and see how he wants to be honored.
AMERICA SHALL BE SAVED!
Aside from the general overuse of caps in this decree, which matches up well with the way in which this prayer is shouted in the video, this once more underscores the way in which 'Christian' Nationalism is a diversion from what God actually told his people to do, the Great Commission, to what he never told them to do, seize geopolitical power for themselves.
“Working together with Him, we strongly urge you not to receive God’s grace in vain [by turning
away from sound doctrine and His merciful kindness]. For He says, ‘At the acceptable time (the
time of grace) I listened to you, and I helped you on the day of salvation.’ Behold, now is ‘the
acceptable time,’ behold, now is ‘the day of salvation.’” 2 Corinthians 6:1-2 (AMP)
*Seven Mountains of Influence include media, business/finance,
family, education, politics, arts/entertainment and religion
In the end, this decree, despite being a frightening display of non-biblical theology that ignores the warnings of Church History, serves as a clear example of what 'Christian' Nationalism is, what it aims for, and why Christians should not only have no part in it, but also oppose it.
We have seen a shift in the past several years, now members of Congress and their allies who claim to represent Christianity, are willing to call themselves Christian Nationalists. They're willing to say, "what's so bad about wanting Judeo-Christian values to prevail?" without dealing with the reality that the prevailing in question is a matter of domination not persuasion, of coercion not repentance. As a Baptist I shudder to see so many fellow Christians, people whose service to others over the years demonstrates that their faith is genuine, being deceived by this path, and I shudder to see that history's lessons are being ignored once again. "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely." - Lord Acton. The Church is not an exception to this rule.
14 Your New Moon feasts and your appointed festivals
I hate with all my being.
They have become a burden to me;
I am weary of bearing them.
15 When you spread out your hands in prayer,
I hide my eyes from you;
even when you offer many prayers,
I am not listening.
Your hands are full of blood!
16 Wash and make yourselves clean.
Take your evil deeds out of my sight;
stop doing wrong.
17 Learn to do right; seek justice.
Defend the oppressed.
Take up the cause of the fatherless;
plead the case of the widow.
18 “Come now, let us settle the matter,”
says the Lord.
“Though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
they shall be like wool.
As someone who has belonged to and served only small churches (yes, the building we have here is huge, the congregation hasn't been big since the 1970's), I can attest to the desire and hope for growth coupled with the insecurity about the future that typifies small churches and their pastors. We want our churches to grow, and we want the Church in America to grow. What I don't want, and what I hope most of my fellow pastors can see to be for what it is, is insincere or coerced growth. What is the value of a church bursting at the seams if the Gospel is not preached, if lives are not being transformed by the Spirit, and if the prayers offered up are not sincere?
As the prophet Isaiah made clear, God is not impressed with acts of worship from hearts that are far from him, even multitudes of them. When it seems that everyone in a community is a Christian, the pressure to fit in can result in people being along for the ride, enjoying the benefits (economic, cultural) of belonging to the group without any of the personal sacrifice and commitment demanded of disciples of Jesus. Bonhoeffer railed against this shallowness in the German Lutheran and Catholic Churches, calling it "cheap grace." Such a scenario existed in America during the 1950's, for example, often seen as the Golden Age that 'Christian' Nationalists are hoping to bring back, but outward conformity does not guarantee a healthy Church, Jim Crow's power among millions of 'Christians' made that clear enough.
Now, however, with Church attendance declining, the temptation offered by 'Christian' Nationalism is to compel various forms of participation on behalf of an unwilling population, to fill our churches again with the stick since the carrot is not longer available.
One of the clearest example of this type of mandatory participation would be the reimposition of prayer in the public schools. While millions of American Christians would cheer this as a victory, the cost to future evangelism would be high, and the result far less than what is promised. Would God suddenly bless America's geopolitical position in the world and economy because school children are required to say a prayer written by a government official? Isaiah knew the answer to that one. In fact, God would be angry rather than impressed with such empty gestures.
In the end, the path that 'Christian' Nationalism offers is a worldly solution (ironic isn't it) to a spiritual problem, both our theology derived from the Bible, and our knowledge of Church History assure us that it won't work. The Church's ultimate victory will not be won at the ballot box, by legislation, or as has been tried far too many times, by the sword.
What should the Church be doing instead of scheming to wield political power? As vs. 16-17 explain, what God actually wants from his people is a (1) rejection of immorality, (2) an embrace of righteous living, (3) and a genuine commitment to work on behalf of those facing injustice and oppression.
This verse is among numerous similar portions of scripture that encapsulate what the people of God should focus their energies upon in one simple sentence. The Kingdom of Israel during the Old Covenant, and the Church during the New Covenant, has a God-given obligation to those on the bottom of society's social hierarchy.
How then does this verse offer a refutation of 'Christian' Nationalism? One aspect of that criticism would be the need for Christians who honor the Word of God by taking this obligation seriously to push back against the policies and structures of their society that marginalize and disadvantage the poor. In other words, American culture, the laws and policies of the American government, and even Capitalism itself must be examined for how they are contributing to the misfortune of our neighbors. Is a democratic government better than an autocratic one? Virtually always, but that doesn't make it flawless, and that doesn't make it beyond criticism when 'our team' is in the White House or controls Congress. Likewise, is capitalism the best economic system of those humanity has tried thus far? Hard to argue from either history or statistical analysis that it isn't, but capitalism has inherent flaws of its own, ones that favor the rich and powerful and disfavor the poor and weak (as does every governmental and economic system created by man), these need to be confronted and countered, even if it clashes with the politics of 'our team'.
Because of the deep identification of 'Christian' Nationalism with the society it seeks to control, the prophetic voice of the Church is muzzled, recent history has shown that those within the Church who speak up for the poor are dismissed, often with vitriol, as 'woke' or 'liberals'. Why the hostility toward those who point out the clear and ongoing flaws in the system? During a war you don't criticize your own team, supposedly. And make no mistake, 'Christian' Nationalism sees itself at war, always. "America, love it or leave it" is a sentiment at home within 'Christian' Nationalism, but if I listen to God's Word as a Christian, I will be called,
To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God. (Micah 6:8b, NIV)
In all honesty, I love America, I consider myself blessed of God to have been born here, but I reject in its entirety the demand of 'Christian' Nationalism that I "root, root, root for the home team". When America is wrong, morally, we are blessed with the right to say so, even when that criticism needs to be aimed at 'our team'. The people of God are called to defend the weak and uphold the cause of the poor, no matter who bears responsibility for that plight, thus silence to protect the (unholy) marriage of Church and State is dereliction of duty.
God as "King of all the earth" is a foundational aspect of the Judeo-Christian worldview. God has no rivals and certainly no equals. The position and dominion of God is secure, always has been, always will be. And yet, 'Christian' Nationalism brings the Kingdom of God down into the trenches, pitting nation against nation, viewing the rise of America (or England, the Holy Roman Empire, Rome, etc. before us) as the flowering of God's purposes, and the potential fall of the favored nation as the withering of God's will. How can this be? Does God not rule the whole earth? Is his purpose not accomplished in every nation?
One of the reasons why 'Christian' Nationalism fails to see the big picture is egocentrism, the belief that God's will must revolve around us and our nation because we're just that important (as compared to other peoples and nations of the world, whom God evidently cares much less about). This was, at times, a flaw of ancient Israel as well, one that Holy Scripture punctures in the story of the prophet Jonah. The entire book of Jonah is a withering rebuke of Israelite nationalists whose concern about humanity stopped at the boundary of their own ethnicity. God's concern did not end there, however. As the prophet Jonah throws a tantrum while watching God's mercy against Nineveh unfold, the book ends with this line:
Jonah 4:11 New International Version
And should I not have concern for the great city of Nineveh, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left—and also many animals?”
The view of Jonah was far too narrow for God, spending three nights in the belly of the great beast of the sea didn't cure him of his folly, so the book ends with us wondering if he hardened his heart following God's rebuke, or repented.
Likewise, the Gospels contain numerous examples in the actions and words of Jesus that refute the notion that God's focus on one nation means that others fall through the cracks. Two prime examples being Jesus' discussion with the Woman at the Well and the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
Lastly, there is one caveat to this discussion, one that will be dealt with numerous times in the texts yet to come in this series: Israel had a covenant with God. Abraham's descendants did have a relationship with God that held promises of great favor AND a stricter level of scrutiny regarding their actions. Israel is the exception to the rule, but as Jonah learned the hard way, the special status of Israel did not remove the other nations of the world from God's concern.
In the end, the Church is NOT Israel, and America is NOT Israel. Whatever promises God made to Israel remain with them, they are not transferable. 'Christian' Nationalism fails, in part, because it seeks to focus God's concern on one nation (the one we happen to live in, imagine that), viewing the world in terms of power politics and national rivalries as they impact that one nation. God's concern is higher, deeper, and much broader.
It was painful, personally and professionally, to watch so many of my fellow Evangelicals (as well as Fundamentalists) in America deny the reality of COVID-19 in the face of ever increasing evidence. It was also disheartening to hear fake 'cures' touted by some of these same voices while the readily available vaccine was rejected (as part of some global, even Satanic, conspiracy). Having spent time in our area hospital praying with and for exhausted nurses, and having presided over the funeral of a fellow pastor and his wife who died on the same day of COVID, this lack of acceptance of basic facts and the nasty hostility toward doctors and scientists, has left a mark. I won't soon forget it. However, when it comes to the grand sweep of history, as traumatic and disruptive as COVID-19 was to the world for two plus years, it will one day be relegated to the history books along with such momentous moments as the fall of the Berlin Wall and 9/11. Future generations will be unlikely to continue to hold the mostly politically motivated, fact denying, COVID-19 related actions of millions of American Christians against them. Climate change is a different sort of beast. Why?
The affects of COVID-19 are fast fading, wounds of this sort to the human psyche heal when the harms fade away, but the mounting affects of climate change are increasingly being felt. If the predictive models are true, the ongoing cost will be upon the shoulders of billions of people throughout the world, and not just once, but over and over again with each successive drought, wildfire, flash flood, and hurricane. COVID-19's impact lasted 2+ years, and we were all so tired of dealing with it, climate change won't have an expiration date, it will build and remain, year after year. With widespread suffering, and the pain (as it always is with such things) felt more by the poor and powerless, the world will look to blame those who stood in the way of mitigating the worst of climate change's affects in the early decades of humanity's grapple with it, when decisive action might have made a big difference. There will be plenty of blame to go around, China will receive some of it, but most will fall upon the West, America in particular, in part because only in America has there been widespread denialism and opposition to mitigating steps, even by private businesses. {In Europe, conservative parties disagree with liberal ones about how to mitigate climate change, not about the reality of it.}
To those on the outside looking in, it may seem curious that American Evangelicals/Fundamentalists have been so deeply and vehemently opposed to the scientific consensus regarding climate change {As if, by force of will, you can change facts}. Four reasons for this stance stand out among others:
How exactly does one witness to those with a degree in science if your theology demands that they abandon generally accepted scientific conclusions on a whole host of topics in order to become a Christian? This is a long standing issue, but one that has grown in recent years into outright hostility toward not only scientific facts, but those whose work revolves around science.
When #'s 1 & 2 combine, we have the increasingly common acceptance of the notion that any scientific consensus is itself evidence of a conspiracy theory, something we saw manifested during COVID-19. If 99% of global climate scientists agree that our current era's climate change is largely affected by human activity, that fact becomes a primary reason to oppose said consensus. One of the reasons why is #4.
We know this to be true: If the Republican party supported policies to combat climate change, and the Democrats (for whatever reason) opposed them, Evangelicals and Fundamentalists would be shouting their support of these policies to combat climate change from the rooftop, and thumping their chests about how important this is to God. This is certainly not the only issue where we see the Church in America acting as if it has a Red wing and a Blue one, often to our shame.
(4) An in-our-lifetime eschatology that is convinced the End Times are upon us, thus negating any serious commitment to environmental conservation or protection. If it is all going to be destroyed in the next few years, who cares? {This attitude disastrously applied to COVID-19: The Mark of the Beast isn't what you think.}
Yesterday I saw, for the first time, a meme from a pastor that proclaimed that climate change MUST be false because it violates the sovereignty of God. A small amount of knowledge about world history will debunk this foolishness. Humanity has been affecting the environment in which we live for thousands of years, mostly in a negative capacity. North Africa during the time of the Roman Empire was a productive province, responsible for much agricultural production, things have changed. God's power and control has not been diminished by this human impact on our world in the past, nor is it in the present.
In the end, what is sorely lacking in much of the 'Christian' vitriol against the scientific consensus regarding climate change is a proper orthodox understanding of stewardship. The Biblical narrative begins with stewardship in the Garden of Eden, but somewhere along the way segments of the Church in America decided that environmental stewardship was not our responsibility. A biblical understanding of stewardship would also act as a check on the rampant consumerism, and disregard for the poort, that affects so much of the American Church, but alas it is a neglected theological imperative.
One hundred years from now, when communities the world over are grappling with the negative affects of climate change, those hoping to share the Gospel in them will have to respond to accusations such as this: "We are in this mess because of American Christians, why should we listen to what you have to say about Jesus?"
18 But the eyes of the Lord are on those who fear him,
on those whose hope is in his unfailing love,
19 to deliver them from death
and keep them alive in famine.
Another failure of the worldview behind 'Christian' Nationalism is that it assumes that human power structures (from elections and lawmaking, on up to political violence and armies) are the key to advancing the Will of God. Scripture proclaims the opposite: No human power, no matter how sizeable, can stand against God, AND God is not dependent upon any human source of power to fulfill his will. In other words, when 'Christian' Nationalists proclaim that their team must win the next election in order to 'save the Church' or 'protect Christianity' (more on why those are red herrings in later texts) they are making a false assumption about God's power that shockingly limits the ability of God to work out his will in our world when 'our team' isn't in control.
Likewise, when 'Christian' Nationalists begin to talk about the need to utilize violence, perhaps even civil war, to accomplish these supposedly necessary ends, they are not only attempting to overcome evil with evil, or turn two wrongs in to a right, but also proclaiming that God's Church, people, or nation (we aren't a Christian nation, but that argument for another text) will lose if we don't shed blood to protect it!! God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, is supposedly incapable of advancing his Kingdom if this nation or this culture are not what 'Christian' Nationalists proclaim that they must be. Is God so weak? Is his will so fragile? Not at all.
What are Christians called to do?
Titus 2:12-13 New International Version
12 It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, 13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,
I must have missed the part where God commands us to conquer in his name.
Now let the fear of the Lord be on you. Judge carefully, for with the Lord our God there is no injustice or partiality or bribery.”
Among the ways in which 'Christian' Nationalism damages the Church is by compromising its moral authority. When the Church (or segments of it) ally themselves with worldly (political) power, it creates an incentive to criticize 'them' for moral failings and a disincentive to criticize 'our team' for those same moral failings. In our own setting, we have seen this play out time and time again since the rise of Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority. In addition to giving 'our' politicians and pundits a free pass while lambasting those of the opposition, 'Christian' Nationalism also encourages the defending of organizations and institutions (See: Clergy Sex Scandal, Catholic, Protestant, etc.) because they are part of that same team effort and if their moral failings were made known, if a reckoning and justice were to be pursued, it would be seen as a win for the other side. When the nation or world is divided in this way into two camps competing for worldly power (as opposed to Paul's theology of worldly vs. spiritual), moral authority diminishes to a tactic, a cudgel, for the bashing of one's enemies, justice is denied, and the Church becomes complicit, at the least, in it.
How do we know God doesn't operate in this fashion? The case of King David is illustrative. Despite being the man hand-picked by God to rule Israel, and having been given the title, "a man after God's own heart", God didn't hesitate to send the Prophet Nathan to excoriate David and pronounce a hard judgment against him (2 Samuel 11-12). God didn't look the other way, and he didn't engage in the repugnant 'what about' moral equivalency that seems to be the go-to response anytime a member/institution on 'our team' commits moral evil (hint: we'd call it a sin if they did it). That King David was on his own side didn't pervert God's justice, let alone stop it.
How does this use of morality, as a tool for our own power rather than a standard to live by, affect our Gospel presentation? How does perverting Justice advance the Kingdom of God? These are questions that 'Christian' Nationalism has no answer for, and as God's Word makes clear, that's a problem.
There was a commercial that aired when I was a kid that asked the philosophical question, "how many licks does it take to get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop?" After three licks the wise old owl gives up and bites the sucker.
I thought of that when compiling my list of scripture passages from my seminar on The Church and Politics which is largely built upon Pastor Gregory Boyd's book, The Myth of a Christian Nation (click for my response to the book). How many passages of scripture would it take to refute 'Christian' Nationalism? If God had given us two or three such admonitions, would it be enough to sway those infected with this heresy? This is the first post in a (intended) series of 62 such passages. Some of them will be redundant, but that too adds strength to the case against this ideology. This is not an exhaustive list, other portions of scripture could be cited, but in the end the question remains: Are 62 passages of the Word of God enough?
Note: History refutes 'Christian' Nationalism. Any non-jaundiced look at history will show time and time again the danger to both Church and State when the two are melded together, but people have an amazing ability to ignore history (See: The Puritans in England under Cromwell) or rewrite it to suit their agendas (See: the Lost Cause in the South after the Civil War). The Word of God is supposed to be different for Jews and Christians. It is supposed to have an authority greater than that of philosophers, historians, politicians, and even pastors. Are those who call themselves Christians in America today willing to listen to God's Word?
Genesis 25:29-34
29 Once when Jacob was cooking some stew, Esau came in from the open country, famished. 30 He said to Jacob, “Quick, let me have some of that red stew! I’m famished!” (That is why he was also called Edom.)
31 Jacob replied, “First sell me your birthright.”
32 “Look, I am about to die,” Esau said. “What good is the birthright to me?”
33 But Jacob said, “Swear to me first.” So he swore an oath to him, selling his birthright to Jacob.
34 Then Jacob gave Esau some bread and some lentil stew. He ate and drank, and then got up and left.
So Esau despised his birthright.
At first glance one might wonder what this passage has to do with 'Christian' Nationalism, but it offers up two powerful moral lessons: (1) Perspective is important: Esau overvalued his immediate hunger and undervalued his birthright. In so doing he placed the fear/worry of now above concern for the future. 'Christian' Nationalism does the same by proclaiming that Kingdom of the World (human nations) cares and concerns are greater than Kingdom of God (The Gospel, the Church, Spirit) commands. It is an imbalance in priorities, the putting of that which is essential below that which is temporary. This is a theme we will see repeated in many of the passages to come. (2) God decides who we are supposed to be: 'Christian' Nationalism fails to appreciate the reality of what the Church is supposed to be, i.e. its birthright. Why are we here in this world, what are we to strive for, and how are we to go about it? All of these questions are answered in detail in the biblical texts (again, themes we will be returning to) and all are under-represented, if not outright ignored, when following the path of 'Christian' Nationalism.
Lastly, a definition that will help bring this ongoing discussion into focus:
What is 'Christian' Nationalism? "Christian Nationalism is an ethno-cultural ideology, that uses Christian symbolism to create a permission structure for the acquisition of political power and social control." - Jemar Tisby, author, historian, and committed Christian
Note: The use of 'air quotes' around the term 'Christian' is on purpose. It is not the generally accepted usage, but one that I will endeavor to remember to always use that signifies my deep felt conviction that there is nothing historically, theologically, or biblically Christ-honoring about 'Christian' Nationalism. As such, I choose to use the air quotes as a reminder of the danger of allowing people (especially non-believers) to believe that Christians in general support this aberrant heretical position.
Note: I know a number of committed Christians, people whom I love and respect, who have been known to use 2 Chronicles 7:14 as a promise to America. While I feel that a proper grammatical/contextual/historical interpretation of this passage precludes such an interpretation and application (see below), I am not questioning their faith, only offering them a warning about the danger of misplaced/misunderstood patriotism.
I saw this image shared on Facebook this week. As someone who has previously highlighted various verses in my Bible, I don't take issue with the desire to make it easier to find a passage in the future, or to remember what one thought about a passage with a note in the margin. This is not that. To draw an American Flag on top of the words of Scripture raises serious questions, to put it here at 2 Chronicles 7:14 points us in the direction of why someone might do this.
2 Chronicles 7:14 New International Version
if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
Why is this interpretation/application of 2 Chronicles 7:14 both erroneous and dangerous?
1. It ignores the context
1 & 2 Chronicles are, as the name suggest, a chronicle of the of the Kingdom of Israel (after the schism, Judah), from the reign of King Saul to the Exile to Babylon. It was written after the Exile as a history for the people who had returned to the Promised Land, offering them understanding as to why things had happened in their past, and hope for the future. The specific context of 7:14 is that the LORD is speaking to King Solomon after the dedication of the Temple in Jerusalem. In that conversation, God promises to Solomon that when the Israelites fail to obey the Covenant, there will be a chance for them to return to God through repentance. Why? Because God has promised them in his Covenant both blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience, and God is faithful to his word, if they repent he will heal them.
2 Chronicles 7:14 is a promise from God to Israel. It is a promise derived from, and inherently connected to, the Covenant that began with Abraham and was expounded further upon to Moses, David, and now Solomon. It was not a promise for any surrounding tribe or nation at that time, nor any other nation later in history. In fact, as Genesis unfolds Abraham learns that Isaac, and Isaac alone, is the Child of Promise. In the next generation, God specifically chooses Jacob over Esau, once against showing that it is God's sovereign will that matters.
Romans 9:10-15 New International Version
Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
2. It ignores the grammar
America is not 'my people', they are not 'called by my name'. I know that millions of Christians believe that we are, but there is no legitimate way that how these terms are used by God when he spoke to Solomon could be stretched to now include the United States. Why? The descendants of Abraham were specifically called by God, set apart by God, and made into a tribe and nation by God. They were 'my people' in every possible way. Where is the parallel to America? At what point, and in what way, were the people who inhabit this land called by God to be here? The Israelites bore the name of God, wherever they went they represented God to the world around them, their distinctive practices in the Law of Moses setting them apart. Where is the parallel to America? In what way, historically or in the present, are the American people distinctive culturally in a way that marks us out as God's people? When considering American distinctives, are ANY of them marks of a people who belong to God?
Numbers 6:27 New International Version
“So they will put my name on the Israelites, and I will bless them.”
In addition, 'their land' is a reference to the Promised Land. It can be no other land in the context of God's conversation with Solomon. It didn't mean any other geographic place on earth. To say that God's promise also applies to England, Spain, Australia, South Korea, or America is to ignore what the text originally intended and decide, on our own, that it can be extended globally.
3. It replaces the Church with America in the hearts and minds of Christians
The promise of 2 Chronicles 7:14 is an Old Covenant promise, not a New Covenant promise. That alone should give us pause as to why it would be applied by Christians to their own circumstances. Beyond that, the promise is made to God's people, not to a nation state. When American Christians (or Christians in any other nation) utilize this verse to talk about their country, they're blurring the line of belonging between the Kingdom of God / Family of God to which they belong as followers of Jesus Christ, and the Kingdom of this World to which they belong as earthly citizens.
Even if the promise of 2 Chronicles 7:14 were applicable to the New Covenant people, it would apply to the Church not any nation. Why? When God instituted the New Covenant through the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels and the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost he did so with peoples called out from every tribe, language, and nation. The wonder at Pentecost of hearing the Gospel in their own languages by Jerusalem's diverse pilgrim crowd illustrated this new emphasis.
Galatians 3:26-28 New International Version
So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Revelation 7:9 New International Version
After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.
It is unfortunate that after the favor placed upon Christianity by Constantine that the idea of Christendom developed. Many of the evils that Christians were involved in from that point on involved protecting Christendom, a 'Christian nation' or collection of Christian nations, from worldly threats. Christendom as a concept opened up Christians to the embrace of the idea of winning converts with the sword, of utilizing evil 'that good may result' because of supposed political necessity, of conquering 'in Jesus' name' and shouting 'God wills it!' as they slaughtered infidels.
Whether one loves America or not, America is NOT the Church. It never was, it cannot be. We blur the lines of allegiance, obligations, and fidelity at our peril.
4. It raises America in our hearts and minds toward a place of idolatry.
I love this country, and count it a great blessing to have been born in this land and have its citizenship, but that blessing cannot compare to having been called by the Spirit of God to become of follower of Jesus Christ, joining the Family of God and becoming a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven. In every way, our faith requires that our allegiance to God come first. If my nation, tribe, community, family choose to abandon God, sin against God, or ignore his call to live righteously in this world, I must choose what faith require over those bonds. Have Christians done this consistently and properly throughout history? Sadly no. They have too often thought of themselves as Dutchmen, Englishmen, Russians, or Americans first, and only secondarily as Christians. This is, to not mince words, idolatry. Whenever devotion to any other unit (family, community, tribe, nation) rises in importance and obligation above the total commitment to the Cross and the Gospel that God demands of those whom he has redeemed, it is sinful idolatry. We may not want to hear this, but we must.
I hope that America has a long and glorious future, but I have no idea if this will be. God has made no such promises to this nation or any other outside of ancient Israel. I have no idea if America will be a force for good in our world, if it will embrace its potential and reject its flaws. I do know, with certainty, that the Church will endure until the Day of Judgment. I do know that God's Spirit will continue to work in its people, globally, because he has indeed promised that he will do so, that his Church will triumph and bring glory to his name. As flawed as it can be, and as often as its people have failed to live up to their calling, the Church's future is secure.
Matthew 16:18New International Version
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
5. Reading America into Old Covenant texts is a form of antisemitism.
Antisemitism is the darkest stain on the dress of the Bride of Christ. That it is an inexcusable evil goes without saying. There is a long standing tendency for Christians to disregard the Covenantal promises made by God to Abraham's descendants and to appropriate them as their own. Does this fly in the face of Paul's impassioned argumentation in Romans? Yes, but it has happened anyway.
To read America into 2 Chronicles 7:14 is to lessen the uniqueness of God's call to Israel. It downplays God's choice of this people, and decides to replace it with another people of our choosing. We, the Church, cannot replace Israel in God's plans, to go beyond that false theology and think that America can stand beside Israel and claim the same promises (conveniently ignoring the curses), or worse yet replace Israel as the sole recipient of those promises, is folly, arrogance, and antisemitism.
Conclusion
Patriotism can be a good thing, but it also potentially very dangerous, especially to Christians. Love of country can be a good thing, but it is also potentially very dangerous when it skews our thinking. America is not the Church and America is not Israel, and 2 Chronicles 7:14 does not belong to either of one of them.
Would God 'heal this land' if repentance swept the nation? Yes, but not in the same way that 2 Chronicles 7:14 promises (good harvests, freedom from illnesses, rest from enemies), and not because we are 'his people' or 'called by his name'. Repentance would lead to a form of healing because the very nature of existence reflects the nature of God, thus always making evil a dead end path and righteousness a blessing. This dynamic is true for every individual and every grouping of people, whether they know God or not. To invoke 2 Chronicles 7:14, and claim its promise as our own, goes beyond this, leading to both false hope in promises God has not made to us, and distortions of the necessary boundaries between our Heavenly and Earthly citizenships.
The Bible doesn't support Democracy. Then again, the Bible doesn't denounce it either. In fact, the Bible mentions Democracy not at all. Most people familiar with the Bible and world history would assume this already, but there are numerous modern topics that were not part of the conversation in the Ancient World. The Bible doesn't address any of these topics directly. How could it? What language would it use, and how could the original audience possibly understand it if it did and thus be edified by it? Remember, the portions of scripture that collectively make up the Bible were first given to specific people on specific occasions, for specific purposes. Because it is God's Word it has meaning and application beyond those initial considerations as part of its enduring quality, but not without them. In other words, "It cannot mean for us what it never meant for them."
The Bible was written in a world that knew only variations of one-man rule (occasionally one-woman rule). Emperors, Kings, Chieftains and the like, some kind and benevolent, some vain and cruel. It did not know Communism, Republics, Constitutional Monarchy or Democracy {The short-lived experiment in 'pure' Democracy in Athens being, if anything, a cautionary tale thanks to its demise, and by the time Rome became a part of the story in the New Testament it had long since ceased to be a Republic}. As such, the Bible neither supports nor condemns modern concepts related to other ways to govern a nation. This gives Christians freedom of conscience when considering what type of governmental system they prefer. Instead of commands in this area, the Bible gives Christians principles to seek to apply such as the Golden Rule, "Do to others as you would have them do to you." (Luke 6:31) or "He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." (Micah 6:8)
That being said, there is a growing trend in the West (Hungary is already there, but also Poland, France, and America) of Christians (a mix no doubt of self-professed cultural 'Christian' and genuine disciples of Christ) supporting Autocratic tendencies in government. In response to societal pressures and fears, a growing number of Christians are beginning to prefer a 'strong man' type leadership to the leadership derived from fair elections. In other words, they would rather have their team win without democracy than risk losing with it. There are increasingly supporting having the policies they champion imposed by any means necessary, regardless the legality of the methods or the rights of others. The most common rationale is to view modern politics as a war, one in which it doesn't matter how you play the game, only whether or not you win or lose. In this view, democratic norms and morality are naïve, only power matters because the stakes are too high {There is much Christian Apocalypse related imagery and reasoning here as well.}
I have written often about the dangers of choosing power over principles, might over right, but what about the danger of choosing Autocracy over Democracy? Are Christians obligated as a matter of morality to support, even defend, the modern concept of liberal democracy?
The answer is yes, and the reason doesn't have to involve a philosophical discussion regarding governance. One need only ask this question, "If democracy falls, what will replace it?" History has shown, repeatedly, that the answer is: something less just, less fair, and more prone to evil. It would be the height of folly to believe that this time it will be different. That we can hand power over to one man, one family, or one cabal, without watching our society descend into persecution of those who oppose the regime. Until the invasion of Ukraine, it was fashionable in some Christian Nationalist circles to view Vladimir Putin as a 'savior' of Christianity against the forces of Islam and Liberalism. As the mass graves in Ukraine, the rape of a country previously at peace attest, autocrats are no friend to Christian morality. There is NO scenario where the American system of elections, of sharing power based upon their results, is replaced by one in which 'our team' has permanent rule that does not involve a massive increase in Evil.
Perhaps some Christians are thinking, "this time it will be different, you'll see." They're wrong; both history and human nature make trusting the leadership of a nation to an autocrat to be a folly, but let's move to a 2nd line of reasoning: Do Unto Others. Would you want to be on the losing side of an Autocratic regime? Would you want your rights taken away by 'them', your role in choosing your nation's future reduced to nothing? The answer is no, it would be tyranny and you would hate it. HOW then can any Christian support the notion that Autocracy is just fine when my team wins if they would violently oppose it if the shoe was on the other foot? If Christian Nationalists are not willing to live with permanent rule of the Democratic Party, how can they cheer on the notion of permanent rule by the Republican Party? To do so, those trending toward autocratic methodology must consider the people on the other side to be less than us: they are less than those of us who are the 'real Americans'. An ethic that follows the teachings of Jesus Christ, that views every person as your neighbor that you must 'love as yourself' cannot tolerate this dissonance. In fact, to embrace us over them, even to see the world as divided into these competing camps, is to begin to walk down the road that negates the truth that every person is made in the image of God. {Yes, the world is divided into Redeemed and Lost, Sheep and Goats, but those are not the lines being drawn here, this is political not spiritual warfare}
Can a Christian, in good conscience, turn against Democracy in favor of Autocracy? Not if he/she loves their neighbor whom such a system would harm, as Jesus commanded us to do.
