Listen to the Word of God: 62 Scripture passages that refute 'Christian' Nationalism - #30 - John 17:16 & 18:36

 

John 17:16  New International Version

They are not of the world, even as I am not of it.

John 18:36  New International Version

Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

Admittedly, it has been a while since I've posted something in my self-imposed series of 62 scripture passages that refute "Christian" Nationalism.  The last post prior to this one was in January, and those of you who read my blog will understand what I've been writing about since them: The First Fruits of Zion.  To compare the two issues (Nationalism vs. the Hebrew Roots Movement, i.e. FFOZ) is a study in contrasts.  "Christian" Nationalism is a big idea with a long history that poses an existential threat to not only America but Europe as well, whereas the HRM is a much more niche idea that most people are unaware of, and one that despite the grandiose vision of its leaders is very unlikely to affect world history.  On another level, "Christian" Nationalism is more nebulous, its influences and harms in the local church and in our denominations more difficult to pin down as it floats on the jetsam with a host of other dangerous political ideas and movements.  In contrast, the HRM {FFOZ being one example}, when one does encounter it as we have here in Venango County, barges into local congregations, pulls individuals out of fellowship, and causes acute local harm.  All that is a long-winded explanation why I needed to prioritize writing about the dangers of FFOZ (an ongoing process as I continue preparing my seminar for this Fall) when its dangerous activity is front-and-center in our Christian community.  So what brought the idea of "Christian" Nationalism back into focus, at least for now?  The urgency come from a new effort being put forth to legitimize and defend this ideology, primarily in Reformed Baptist circles (not my pond, but adjacent to the one I swim in, and I know it well enough).

The effort in question: The Statement on Christian Nationalism and the Gospel is a very populist/libertarian (they don't mesh well, I know) and isolationist political essay wrapped in the notion that this is the true vision of Jesus Christ for not only his Church, but every nation on the planet as well in this age.

The contradiction between Jesus' words in John's Gospel and the statement linked above could not be more stark.  The authors of the statement envision Jesus Christ reigning and ruling over this world, here and now, when he made no such claim.  In essence, they believe they can establish at least a version of the kingdom that Jesus promised that he would establish when he returns, but of course Jesus did not encourage, let alone command, his followers to be about this task.

If you take the time to read the statement, a number of eye-opening claims may stand out to you.  When I read it, two of the inherent problems of this philosophy, regarding which "Christian" Nationalism does NOT have any moral answers came to the forefront: (1) What about the non-Christians living in the nations that follow this vision?  They will either become second-class citizens who are forced to live against their beliefs, and/or be expelled from the land.  While the authors thankfully denounce ethnic homogeneity, they implicitly are endorsing national religious uniformity.  History has such an example in Spain after the Reconquista where both Muslims and Jews were given the "choice" between fleeing as refugees and converting.  Let me save you the suspense, it was a brutal process that gave the Inquisition a chance to shine.  You may be saying, "Where in the statement is this?"  It isn't, but that is the inevitable conclusion when you state that the civil government should enforce the Ten Commandments (the one on the Sabbath is awkward given that Christians worship on the Lord's Day, that is Sunday).  The key one here is the taking of the Lord's name in vain, i.e. blasphemy.

WE AFFIRM that the Christian Nationalist project entails national recognition of essential Christian Orthodoxy (Article II) as a Christian consensus under Jesus Christ, the supreme Lord and King of all creation, and the establishment of the general equity of the second table of the Ten Commandments (laws 5-10) as the foundational law of the nation, with warnings informing citizens of the consequences of blaspheming the One, True, and Living God often resulting in second table violations, namely, the harming of our neighbors’ lives and property.

WE DENY that laws against public blasphemy coerce conversion or hinder religious liberty in private.

Once non-Christians in America (or Europe, this movement is more advanced there in Russia and Hungary) are muzzled with blasphemy laws {i.e. the 1st Amendment is neutered}, the second moral quandary of "Christian" Nationalism will rear its ugly head: (2) The government will be in the business of defining orthodoxy within Christianity and punishing those who run afoul of that judgment.  Throughout the statement there are references to promoting and defending historic Christian orthodoxy, and while I have great confidence that we can come to a working definition of such for ecumenical purposes within the Church {that is freely chosen associations}, as a Baptist (in the historic sense) I have zero confidence in having that definition interpreted and enforced by a politician or judge.

So, first the blasphemy laws will silence or expel the non-Christians, then they will come for the not-sufficiently orthodox people who claim to be Christians {Again, the government would be making these judgment calls through arrests and trials of those who violate the law against blasphemy}.

Can this really be what Jesus wanted his Church to become?  Is this in any way a part of the Kingdom of God that he proclaimed would be marked by love and self-sacrificial servanthood?  

Lastly, and this should not be missed when you read the statement: the authors admit they're not willing to prioritize democracy or the republic.  They think that "Christian" Nationalism will work just fine under dictators {See: Putin and the wanna-be dictator Viktor Orban}.

WE DENY that the separation of authority between the Church and the State means there must be a separation of God and the state. We further deny that there can ever be a separation between religion and state., as everyone possesses views about ultimate reality, purpose, and cause, which inform their morality and preferred policies. We deny the idea that a nation’s laws do not impose morality and religion.

Read the statement, and read John 17:16 and 18:36, the disconnect is powerful.

I'm not afraid, should I be?

 

Psalm 46

1 God is our refuge and strength,

    an ever-present help in trouble.

2 Therefore we will not fear, though the earth give way

    and the mountains fall into the heart of the sea,

In the Empire Strikes Back, young Luke Skywalker is trying to convince the Jedi Master Yoda to train him, a task that Yoda deems both too late and unwise due to Luke's rashness.  Luke tries to change his mind by claiming, "I won't fail you, I'm not afraid."  After a nice long dramatic pause, Yoda replies, "You will be...You...will...be."

Here's the thing, I'm against 'Christian' Nationalism and embracing strongmen/autocrats to solve our nation's problems, not because I'm naïve like Luke, but because I'm sober-minded enough, and grounded in history and theology enough, to know better.

I will never embrace solving America's problems by abandoning the democratic process in favor of a 'savior', not because I don't love America as much as those advocating such a drastic move (see for example: Eric Metaxas and Rod Dreher), but because I know human history.

Autocracy has never saved a democracy.  

Power always corrupts, the greater the power the greater the corruption, do you really think that one person wielding the power of the American military and economy without checks and balances, without elections and judicial review, would be a force for good in the world?  We've seen how much evil has been done with the power Xi Jinping wields in China, do you think an American strongman would be any different?  Only a fool would think this plan disconnected from both human nature and world history is anything but a national suicide pact.

Immorality has never helped the Church

I will never embrace 'helping' the Church by utilizing evil as a tool, not because I don't love the Church as much as those advocating such a Faustian bargain, but because I know the nature of God.

Many of those not quite willing to abandon our democratic rights have nevertheless been convinced, or have chosen to convince themselves, that the 'greater good' and the urgency of the moment demands that we abandon the luxuries of Truth, Honor, Integrity, Kindness, Mercy, and the like in favor of Realpolitik, 'might makes right', and 'win at all cost' means and measures.  Only a fool would think this plan disconnected from both the nature of Evil and the Holiness of God is anything but an act of faithless rebellion.  Evil is never the path chosen by God for you or for us.  Choosing evil to confront threats to the Church instead of righteousness is not realistic, it is cowardly, it is faithless.

I'm not afraid of the present, there's nothing new under the sun.

I'm not afraid of what comes next, God is always in control, my faith rests in him.

I'm not afraid of the future, God's final victory is assured.

The Early Church was a tiny minority living in a hostile pagan Empire that would soon be torturing and murdering the disciples of Jesus.  And yet, the Apostle Paul never even hinted at trying to overcome evil with evil, in fact he specifically rejected it {Romans 12:21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.}.  If the disciples of Jesus, who watched their Lord be brutally murdered at the hands of evil men, and the early generations of his followers, who faced the mightiest Empire the world had ever known, were told to not lost heart, to not compromise their character, but to serve and sacrifice with righteousness and love, what on earth makes 21st century American Christians so important that our fears, real or imagined, allow us to not follow in their footsteps?

Yoda also said something else that is appropriate here, "Fear is the path to the Dark Side."

I'm not afraid, my God is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, why should you be?

See Also: The downward spiral of Bonhoeffer biographer Eric Metaxas

The Bible doesn't mandate that Christians support Democracy, BUT preventing the Evil that Autocracy would unleash in America does

The Watchman Decree: 'Christian' Nationalism's 'name it and claim it' dangerous prayer

Sermon Video: The insanity of: "Let us do evil that good may result" Romans 3:5-8

The Bible doesn't mandate that Christians support Democracy, BUT preventing the Evil that Autocracy would unleash in America does

 

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.