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
“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”
One of the most divisive changes made to the plot and characters of the Lord of the Rings by Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, and Peter Jackson in the movie trilogy that premiered between 2001-2003 was the interaction between Frodo & Sam and Boromir's younger brother Faramir. In the movie version, Faramir is tormented by his father's disapproval, and while not jealous of his older brother's successes, he knows that he can never measure up in their father's eyes. This tracks closely with the novel thus far, but the screenwriters decided to change how Faramir reacts to this pressure when his men capture Frodo and Sam and Faramir learns that they are trying to take the One Ring to Mount Doom. In the movie, Faramir starts off down the path of taking the Hobbits to his father Denethor at Minas Tirith, getting so far as the ruins of Osgiliath before Sam dramatically explains to him that desire for the Ring drove Boromir mad. At this point Faramir comes to his senses, realizes that his true loyalty is to the larger effort to defeat Evil, not his father or even his kingdom, and lets Frodo and Sam go with his blessing. The movie's version is dramatic, and full of tension, but not what Tolkien envisioned.
In the novel, the scene where Faramir learns about the ring unfolds much as it does in the movie (which contains much direct quotation), but turns away sharply from the movie's hesitation when the truth about the Ring is revealed:
Faramir confesses to Frodo that he has no desire to win glory through the methods of the Dark Lord.
'But fear no more! I would not take this thing, if it lay by the highway. Not were Minas Tirith falling in ruin and I alone could save her, so, using the weapon of the Dark Lord for her good and my glory. No, I do not wish for such triumphs, Frodo son of Drogo.'
'Neither did the Council,' said Frodo. 'Nor do I. I would have nothing to do with such matters.'
And moments later when Faramir learns that the Ring is indeed in his grasp if he should so choose:
'So that is the answer to all the riddles! The One Ring that was thought to have perished from the world. And Boromir tried to take it by force? And you escaped? And ran all the way — to me! And here in the wild I have you: two halflings, and a host of men at my call, and the Ring of Rings. A pretty stroke of fortune! A chance for Faramir, Captain of Gondor, to show his quality!'.... He stood up, very tall and stern, his grey eyes glinting.
Frodo and Sam sprang from their stools and set themselves side by side with their backs to the wall, fumbling for their sword-hilts.... But Faramir sat down again in his chair and began to laugh quietly, and then suddenly became grave again.
'Alas for Boromir! It was too sore a trial!' he said. 'How you have increased my sorrow, you two strange wanderers from a far country, bearing the peril of Men! But you are less judges of Men than I of Halflings. We are truth-speakers, we men of Gondor. We boast seldom, and then perform, or die in the attempt. Not if I found it on the highway would I take it I said. Even if I were such a man as to desire this thing, and even though I knew not clearly what this thing was when I spoke, still I should take those words as a vow, and be held by them.
'But I am not such a man. Or I am wise enough to know that there are some perils from which a man must flee. Sit at peace! And be comforted, Samwise.... Your heart is shrewd as well as faithful.... For strange though it may seem, it was safe to declare this to me. It may even help the master that you love. It shall turn to his good, if it is in my power. So be comforted. But do not even name this thing again aloud. Once is enough.'
Faramir has no desire to claim the Ring as his own, unlike his more proud and headstrong older brother, and he considers his previous declaration ("Not if I found it on the highway would I take it") to be a binding oath as a matter of honor. Faramir, in Tolkien's imagining of his character, has no internal conflict when it comes to right and wrong, no desire to serve two masters, the higher purpose always holds him fast against temptation.
In case you're wonder, both Faramir's brother Boromir and his father Denethor fall to the temptation to put their own nation above morality. Both have a worldview that puts the continuation of Gondor above what is right for the rest of Middle Earth and are willing to commit dishonorable and immoral acts to maintain it {And, to be frank, their own positions of dominance in that kingdom, and added push from temptation}.
And here is where our ongoing discussion of 'Christian' Nationalism comes in. The movement asks us to divide our loyalties, to take our focus off of the Kingdom of God and place our energies and efforts first and foremost into securing the advancement of a kingdom-of-the-world. For Americans this is a strong emotional appeal, after all we have much to love for our country, much to be proud of, and much that we might believe it can accomplish in this world. Citizens of a less powerful, less good, nation would be tempted less to make its success their idol. Non-citizens and those neglected and abused by their society rarely feel this temptation as well. The appeal of 'Christian' Nationalism is uniquely tailored, then, toward those of us with the potential to put political power to use, those of us who can imagine what we might do if people like us were in charge. But, in the end, to the extent that participation in the power structures of this world causes in us any measure of divided loyalties, any distraction from Kingdom of God work, and any excuse to try to utilize evil in the name of good, that divided loyalty is sin. Our allegiance is bought and paid for by the Blood of the Lamb, to divide it is an affront to the God who saved us.
Our allegiance, therefore, can never be to any version
of the kingdom-of-the-world, however much better we may think it is than any
other versions of the kingdom-of-the world...preserving this 'alien
status' is not an addendum to our calling as kingdom-of-God citizens; it
belongs to the essence of what it means to be a kingdom-of-God citizen...We
utterly trivialize this profound biblical teaching if we associate our peculiar
holiness with a pet list of religious taboos (such as smoking, drinking,
dancing, gambling, and so on). No, the
holiness the New Testament is concerned with is centered on being Christlike,
living in outrageous, self-sacrificial love." (The Myth of the Christian Nation, Pastor Gregory Boyd, p. 70-71, emphasis
mine)
“Then the master told his servant, ‘Go out to the roads and country lanes and compel them to come in, so that my house will be full.
This example is a bit unusual in that the text in question does not refute 'Christian' Nationalism, rather it is a text once used to support the suppression of dissenting voices within the Church through military force. In other words, Luke 14:23 was used historically on behalf of a Church Militant.
Saint Augustine is the third most influential person in Church history after two people whose names you will undoubtedly recognize: Jesus and the Apostle Paul. Most of Augustine's contributions were massively helpful to the Church, but there were exceptions {for instance: his negative view of sex even within marriage still ripples harming Christian marriages to this day}. The most dangerous idea that Augustine embraced was that it was fitting and proper for the Roman Empire, newly on the side of Christianity thanks to Constantine, to force the Donatists in North Africa with whom he contended on an issue of polity to rejoin the Church. His example of a militant Church authority would be used more than 1,000 years later to force Martin Luther to choose between rebellion and his understanding of God's Word.
The Donatist Controversy predated Augustine's time as the Bishop of Hippo, having arisen after the great persecution of Emperor Diocletian {303-305, 1/2 of all Early Church martyrs killed during those three years} when those who had refused to worship the Emperor (risking their lives) would not allow those who had recanted their faith under pain of death to return to the Church. Augustine sided with those in favor of forgiveness, hoping to heal the rift. After a pair of councils in N. Africa failed to reach a resolution, Augustine threw his weight behind the Emperor's willingness to use the army to enforce reconciliation.
This is one of the first examples of Christian on Christian violence in the name of unity, it happened in the very first generation in which Christian had civil/military power to wield against each other.
Was Jesus talking about Church unity in Luke 14:23? Hardly, that's not even on the radar when considering the interpretation of this parable. And yet, Christians (whether or not they deserve the 'Christian' caveat) have been willing through the centuries to wield scripture as a cudgel, backing it up with force, against those with whom they disagree. The Inquisition, the burning at the stake of Jan Hus, the slaughter of the people of Magdeburg, the City Council of Zurich drowning Anabaptists, the Puritans at Plymouth hanging Quakers, and so on, all following in the footsteps of the anti-Christian notion that faith can be compelled by threats and violence, that it can be protected or saved at the point of a sword.
In case you're wondering, the use of violence against the Donatists didn't work (it never does). Four centuries later when Islamic armies rolled across N. Africa the resistance to this invasion was weakened by a Church still divided against itself. Would kindness and patience have worked to heal the rift? That's the road not taken, we'll never know, but the use of force by Christians against Christians most certainly did not.
27 “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.
32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. 35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
It isn't everyday that a 'Christian' Nationalist figure, and one of the most popular ones at that, flat out dismisses the teachings of Jesus as a plan that has "gotten us nothing." But on December 19th, 2021 at a Turning Point USA conference, Donald Trump Jr. did just that. The extended quotation is below:
“If we get together, they cannot cancel us all. OK? They won’t,” he said. “And this will be contrary to a lot of our beliefs because — I’d love not to have to participate in cancel culture. I’d love that it didn’t exist. But as long as it does, folks, we better be playing the same game. OK? We’ve been playing T-ball for half a century while they’re playing hardball and cheating. Right? We’ve turned the other cheek, and I understand, sort of, the biblical reference — I understand the mentality — but it’s gotten us nothing. OK? It’s gotten us nothing while we’ve ceded ground in every major institution in our country.”
And while the mockery of 'turn the other cheek' got some slight pushback, with baptistnews.com, churchleaders.com, and relevantmagazine.com all posting articles condemning the dismissal of Jesus' command to his disciples, there was remarkable little response from the likes of Franklin Graham, John MacArthur, Doug Wilson, James White, Robert Jeffress, or Thomas Ascol, all of whom have been quick over the years to condemn liberal derelictions of inerrancy (that is, not taking the Bible seriously as authoritative truth, when accurate these criticisms are warranted), but a Google search finds none of them saying a peep when a leader on 'our team' publicly declares that we've listened to Jesus for far too long.
{There is a separate conversation to be had about the premise: I don't believe that Jerry Falwell, the Moral Majority, or the Christian Coalition, for example, were actively 'turning the other cheek' in recent decades, rather they fought tooth and nail in the cultural and governmental arenas to which Donald Trump Jr. is referring.}
That's one of the things that 'Christian' Nationalism does to the Church. It creates excuses for when 'our team' defies scripture, even openly mocks Jesus. Why? Because we need those allies to win. It doesn't really matter if their faith is genuine, if their lives are moral or immoral, winning is everything.
Throughout the centuries the Church has failed to embrace Jesus' teaching on this topic of non-violence, non-resistance, and prayer for our enemies about as often and as thoroughly as any topic addressed by Jesus or covered extensively in the N.T. Our track record since Constantine's legalization of Christianity has been mixed, at best, far too often it has been awful.
And yet, now we're being told that we need to take the gloves off? We need bare-knuckle boxing because using a bit of restraint isn't good enough?
Nope. Not what Jesus told us to do, not what the Word of God commands, I don't care how important you are as a politician, or how many retweets you're getting these days, your authority falls massively short in comparison.
5 The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. 6 And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and splendor; it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. 7 If you worship me, it will all be yours.”
8 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.’”
How many Lord of the Rings references have I made over the years? Too many to count, and with that in mind, here's one more:
Toward the end of The Fellowship of the Ring, Frodo offers the Ring of Power to Galadriel, and elven Lord who has taken a leading part in the war against evil (first Morgoth, now Sauron) for thousands of years. What will she do if given the chance to end the fight, to take in her own hand sufficient power to put aside all doubt and fear that Evil might triumph over Good?
“And now at last it comes. You will give me the Ring freely! In place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair!”
She lifted up her hand and from the ring that she wore there issued a great light that illuminated her alone and left all else dark. She stood before Frodo seeming now tall beyond measurement, and beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful. Then she let her hand fall, and the light faded, and suddenly she laughed again, and lo! she was shrunken: a slender elf-woman, clad in simple white, whose gentle voice was soft and sad.
“I pass the test”, she said. “I will diminish, and go into the West and remain Galadriel.”
Galadriel passed the test. She chose to reject the power of domination and subjugation in favor of trusting in the hope that Frodo can somehow destroy the Ring, "a fool's hope" as Gandalf describes it, but better than the folly of embracing evil to fight evil.
Jesus, of course, does the same thing. He resists the easy path, the one without sacrifice, the one that has a deal-breaker of a caveat (worshiping the Devil), choosing instead to continue on the pre-ordained path of the Suffering Servant until the brutal end.
How then does this apply to 'Christian' Nationalism? A straightforward application, indeed. 'Christian' Nationalism's premise is that it can serve the purpose of God by dominating the kingdoms of this world, to do so it chooses to utilize the tools and methods of this world, crushing and subjugating all opposition, and somehow in the end hoping to create a nation that honors God. It would be laughable if it were not so deadly dangerous. It won't work, it cannot work. Galadriel was wise enough to see the folly of trying to overcome evil with evil, Jesus wasn't about to entertain it, let alone try it, so why have so many self-professed Christians today decided that they can get the better out of a deal with the Devil?
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.
15 While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16 When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
Any day at the office that starts with me thinking of a way to use a Star Wars analogy to make a theological point is a good day...
In Star Wars Episode IV, A New Hope, the young naïve farm boy Luke follows the world weary Obi-Wan Kenobi into a bar in the town of Mos Eisley, as Kenobi called it, "a wretched hive of scum and villainy." One would think that just about anyone would be welcome in a dive bar in such a town, but when they enter the bartender angrily yells, "We don't serve their kind here!" while pointing at Luke's droids, R2-D2 and C-3PO. They evidently have a problem with droids, the reasoning for which the movie makes no attempt to explain.
It isn't a mystery, however, why the Pharisees of Jesus' day didn't like 'tax collectors and sinners' (in other passages prostitutes are thrown into the same list of 'off-limits' people). The Pharisees saw such people as a stain upon society, a visible manifestation of the ways in which the Jewish people were not sufficiently committed to the Mosaic Law. One one level they were right, those who break the Law of Moses are indeed sinners and that Law takes such things very seriously. A response is necessary.
And what was their response to those who didn't live up to God's standard? Treat them as outcasts, revile and denigrate them, make sure everyone knows you are better than they are.
And how does Jesus respond to these lost souls? He ate with them. He treated them like real human beings, like people who, although they had made poor choices in life thus far, still mattered to God, still had worth. Jesus responded to the sinfulness of others with a kindness and compassion designed not to push them into a corner, but to offer them the hope of repentance.
Which brings us to 'Christian' Nationalism. Recall the rhetoric of leading 'Christian' Nationalist voices. How do they describe those they view as a threat to a 'Christian America'? Certainly as an enemy, often with pejoratives, insults, and venom. The anger is real, the hostility is palpable, and so is the fear.
Where is the outreach to the Lost? Where is the compassion for those living in darkness? Where is the confidence that God can save even the vilest offender? These have been tossed aside as a weakness we can't afford to indulge {See: The folly of the "Sin of Empathy" - A self-inflicted wound to Christian Fundamentalism}. The goal of 'Christian' Nationalism is to crush the enemies of God's people, not to convert them, not to love them, not to treat them like Jesus did.
Let me end with one more Star Wars quote, this time from Empire Strikes Back: "That is why you fail."
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.
20 and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”
21 “Caesar’s,” they replied.
Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”
It has been a long time since I was a math nerd. The A that I earned in Calculus in high school was the last math class that I ever needed, or wanted, to take. But I still enjoy a well laid out Venn Diagram's ability to explain the relationship between things that otherwise are confusing to people. In my World Religions seminar I created a three circle Veen Diagram to illustrate the overlap and differences between the terms: Jew, Judaism, and Israelite because people can belong to one, two, or all three of those categories.
When the Pharisees tried to trap Jesus between the power of the Roman Empire and man's higher obligation to God, Jesus could have given an answer that would have resoundingly supported both Jewish Nationalism in the 1st Century, and Christian Nationalism in the last two thousand years. But he didn't. Not at all, not a bit. Instead of ranking the obligations that we owe to God and earthly powers, Jesus differentiated between them.
The Pharisees were expecting Jesus to argue that "B is proper subset of A" (the circle within the circle in the chart above), either that God's rule is supreme, or Rome's, but they're all one circle. In a sense, that's true, God is indeed supreme over all, the entirety of the created universe belongs in a circle contained within the all-encompassing circle of God. But, and this is key, that's an ontological answer (i.e. the nature of reality), not a functional one. God chose to allow humanity a degree of freedom and autonomy, to let the governments of humanity exist without being theocracies directly under his immediate rule {Israel prior to their requests for a king come closest to that model}.
In the end, 'Christian' Nationalists want the two circles of human government and God's rule to perfectly overlap, to make them one in the same (i.e. one circle, not two). Jesus rejected this idea, he wasn't interested in conquering human governments, his Kingdom would be founded on different principles and pursue different goals. The Church of Jesus Christ must follow his lead. We are not called to triumph over Caesar, or even to be Caesar, but to continue to give to God what is God's.
What belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God? That's an important question, and one God-honoring men and women in the Church might not always agree upon, but one thing is certain, there is a distinction between them.
Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you.
When asked in episode 3 of the new Disney + series Andor how he acquired a highly secret piece of Imperial hardware, the show's title character Casssian Andor (played by Diego Luna) responds with scorn that because the Empire is so full of itself the only thing you need to do is put on a uniform and walk in like you belong there.
An age old question for both Judaism and Christianity has been how to differentiate between those who properly belong to the religion and those who do not. The question is complicated by the realization that our methods or criteria for inclusion or exclusion may not properly align with God's such that we may be welcoming those whom God has not, and scorning those whom God has chosen. Jesus himself makes much of this dissonance, repeatedly rejecting self-righteous Pharisees and others with power and authority within 1st century Judaism, while welcoming fishermen, women, tax collectors, prostitutes, lepers, and various others that had been labeled by society as outcast 'sinners', but who were willing to come to him in faith.
The Church, for its part, has struggled throughout its history to require genuine discipleship from all its adherents, while at the same time keeping its doors wide open to anyone and everyone whom God may call to repentance. The more power and influence the Church has wielded in society, the more it has been likely to welcome the rich and well connected with no questions asked and turn up its nose at the poor and forgotten despite Jesus' example to the contrary. Jesus called us to be better than that.
'Christian' Nationalism is especially vulnerable because of its pursuit of worldly power to the charge of accepting false devotion (i.e. that which is based upon selfish motives and not grounded in repentance and faith) among those who can help it achieve its goals {Including the related topic of ignoring heretical beliefs, even clear apostasy when coming from a political leader or ally}, while at the same time rejecting as unworthy those who demonstrate faith and righteous living, but happen to not share the same politics/ethnicity/nationality. In other words, 'Christian' Nationalism is defining 'us' and 'them' by superficial criteria that mock Jesus' willingness to speak hard truths to the powerful and hold out hope to the weak.
Why? Because 'Christian' Nationalism is trying to 'win' in this world, the consequences to the next are secondary at best. The true Church is willing to lose everything in this world for the sake of the Kingdom of God.
3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
One of the things that made George Lucas' fictional Force interesting as a story plot device was how counter-intuitive it was for most of the characters. Luke's first interaction with the Force is a training exercise where Obi-Wan Kenobi asks him to try to defend himself against a drone with the 'blast shield' on the helmet lowered, i.e. to fight blind. After initially failing, he eventually starts to get the hang of it. At the end of the movie, Luke demonstrates that he learned something about the Force in the brief interim by destroying the Death Star by 'using the Force' to aim his proton torpedoes rather than his targeting computer. The Force, in Lucas' imagining, is not like anything we know from our own experience here on Earth.
As Jesus explains the Kingdom of God to his disciples, he time and time emphasizes that the methods and goals of the kingdom he is founding are not those of this world. It won't operate according to this world's rules, and it won't chase after what this world covets. The Kingdom of God will be different.
The Church, therefore, must follow this series of commands and teachings by Jesus when considering how we are to fulfill our obligations as encapsulated in the Great Commission. If we attempt to achieve the correct goals, but do so using the methodology and tactics of this world, we will fail. If we attempt to achieve goals other than the ones that Jesus told us to pursue, we will fail. It is that simple.
Unfortunately, Church History is full of examples of men and women, some of whom were acting in sincere faith and devotion, others not so much, who either abandoned Jesus' methodology, or eschewed his goals. The results were, entirely predictably, disastrous.
Here is where 'Christian' Nationalism comes in. As a movement, it is BOTH utilizing strategies and tactics that are in direct contradiction to Jesus' example of servanthood and righteousness by placing morality as a lower priority than winning, AND doing so in the service of the pursuit of worldly power (and the wealth and fame that go with it) that Jesus never, not once, told his disciples to pursue. Knowing that either immoral methodology, or faulty goals, will doom any human endeavor that is supposedly undertaken on God's behalf, it is certain that 'Christian' Nationalism will fail, as it has always done throughout Church History, no matter how much power it manages to scrape together in this world. Make sure you understand this: Even if 'Christian' Nationalists "take back America for God" they will fail. Even if they control the entire government, in perpetuity, wielding all of its power in pursuit of their politics, they will fail. It may not look like it from the heights of world power, but it will most assuredly be true when looking at the effect upon the Kingdom of God.
Failure is inevitable because the Kingdom of God doesn't work this way, and the Kingdom of God isn't interested in what Nationalists so badly want.
For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it.
In 1519, Spanish Conquistador Hernan Cortes, facing attempts by some from his expedition to abandon their mission and sail back to Cuba, ordered his entire fleet to be scuttled {The popular story is that the ships were burned, but given how costly they were, Cortes would have only put holes in the ships, making sailing them impossible in the short-term so they could be salvaged at least for the wood later on}. Having eliminated the possibility of retreat, Cortes then led his men onward in the Spanish conquest of Mexico.
An illustration from a conquest carried out, at least on paper, in the name of Christ is not something one would normally use when writing against 'Christian' Nationalism since that's the attitude we need to avoid, but the well known actions of Cortes, in an unjust cause, still serve as a reminder of how differently people act when they have passed the Point of No Return.
Every single legitimate follower of Jesus Christ throughout history was past the Point of No Return from the moment he/she became committed to Jesus until death. What does this mean? This world is not our home, this life is not ours to do with as we please. We are here on a mission from God, called to serve a purpose, we cannot do that and try to live for wealth, power, or fame in this world too.
'Christian' Nationalists certainly have a sense of purpose and mission, that's not the problem, the problem is that they've turned the focus of our calling as Christians toward this world and not the next, toward the physical and not the spiritual. Toward power and control here and now, not the service and sacrifice that Jesus demands of us. In the end, they're still trying to save their lives (and/or country) here rather than give them over to the Gospel.
As the Steven Curtis Chapman song, Burn the Ships, inspired by Cortes' bold move says,
"Burn the ships we're here to stay
There's no way we could go back
Now that we've come this far by faith
Burn the ships we've passed the point of no return
21 From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.
22 Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”
23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”
Why the picture of Shaq throwing down a dunk? What's this got to do with 'Christian' Nationalism? The average Joe off the street, probably at least a foot shorter and a hundred pounds lighter, has a better chance of blocking Shaq's dunk attempt, let's say a 0.0001% chance, than 'Christian' Nationalists do of having either their goals and especially their tactics, in alignment with God's Will.
Afterall, it is not God that must conform to our will, but we that must conform to his. That being said, Jesus repeatedly declared what his purpose for his followers was: to constitute a Church (the Body of Christ), what its goal would be, to make disciples in every nation, and how they must conduct themselves to do this, through sacrifice and a servant's heart while utilizing the Fruit of the Spirit.
What Jesus did not declare is that his followers would hold dominion over others, would subjugate the unwilling at the point of the sword, would gain and hold power by any means necessary, and would turn a blind eye to evil among them in the name of pragmatism in the process. Not one of these goals or methods is acceptable to the will of God, and yet, throughout Church History we have seen them embraced, first on a grand scale with the Crusades {adding the blasphemous cry of, "God wills it!" to the folly of it}, then on a national one with the Spanish Inquisition, and sprinkled throughout were torture, imprisonment, and burnings at the stake. All in the name of God, all supposedly to help God 'win' here on earth. Tragic, foolish, unnecessary, and ultimately evil.
The current movement of 'Christian' Nationalism may be, thus far, less violent than the defenders of Christendom in the past. And even though the trend is toward encouraging and accepting more coercion, less democracy, and violence, with some supposed 'prophets' even calling for a new American Civil War, 'Christian' Nationalism does not need its own Timothy McVeigh to prove that this path is fraught with peril. One need only look to the Word of God to see if this is what God called his Church to do or how he commanded them to do it.
It is popular to declare the need to, "Take back America for God", but making the claim does not answer the questions: Is this God's will? How do you know this is what God wants? Even if this is God's will, would he sanction going about it like this?
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.
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you
How does the Kingdom of God advance? By doing exactly what is contrary to fallen human nature. Our natural response to having an enemy in life is to seek to crush that enemy, but disciples of Jesus Christ are called to a far more difficult and radical commitment: love our enemies and pray for them.
'Christian' Nationalism, by immersing itself in the fight for control of the kingdoms of this world, and the fights among those kingdoms (i.e. geo-political rivalries and wars), has chosen to live according to realpolitik rather than the commands of Jesus. How can we love our enemy, they say, when we're at war with them for control of America? The stakes are too high to trust lover over power is the lie they're telling themselves. How can we pray for our enemy, they say, when they are a rival to our nation? We are God's chosen nation, his instrument in this world, is the lie their pride is telling them.
Lip service that 'Christian' Nationalism may pay to Jesus' teaching and attitude aside, the reality demonstrated again and again is that the struggle for societal/governmental control and domination inherent to 'Christian' Nationalism's ethos has already concluded that what Jesus taught his followers is unrealistic, if not outright naïve. In fact, one recent political figure mocked Jesus' command to 'turn the other cheek' at a gathering of supposedly Christian political operatives. {Donald Trump Jr. tells young conservatives that following Jesus’ command to ‘turn the other cheek’ has ‘gotten us nothing’ - Baptist News Global, by Mark Wingfield}. That gathering was sponsored by Turning Point USA whose website (at the time) proudly proclaimed: “We play offense with a sense of urgency to win America’s culture wars.”
Here's the thing, Jesus didn't call us to "play offense...to win America's culture wars." Jesus called us to live self-sacrificially while praying for our enemies. Will this strategy 'win' in this world? Probably not, but that's not where our priorities are supposed to be as Christians. 'Christian' Nationalists may have a long and bitter list of enemies, people and organizations they're willing to fight to the death (sometimes literally) to defeat, but followers of Jesus Christ have been forbidden, by God, from indulging our sinful nature in this vain pursuit. Our calling is higher, purer, and far more difficult: "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."
“You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.
How cozy with the Kingdoms of this World (human governments) can the Church be before it loses its saltiness? In other words, if the Church wields dominion in this age, determining military policy, tax provisions, environmental regulations, food and drug safety, and the whole host of decisions over peoples lives that a modern government must make {choosing not to regulate an area is of course a decision too}, will such a Church retain any of its required saltiness?
The context leading up to verse 13 of the Sermon on the Mount is the Beatitudes. Just prior to telling his followers to be salt, an element essential for life in the Ancient World, Jesus proclaims that the Kingdom of God is counter-intuitive by declaring those whom society normally looks upon as 'losers' to be "blessed". You see, the Kingdom of God is not business as usual, it isn't a slightly better version of this world's cultures and governments, it isn't a tweak of the old; the Kingdom of God is a radical change of human behavior and interactions on a fundamental level from top to bottom.
For far too much of Church History the Church has been content to nibble at the margins, to strive for a better world without putting the Word of God to the test by living in accordance with ALL that it teaches. The Church has lived by faith, but only so far. And yet, 'Christian' Nationalism would ask us to lean into this hesitancy, to go all-in on ruling here and now by using the very methods and tactics that this world has devised to grasp and maintain power. "Be Christ-like and trust God with the results? You naïve fool, we'd lose if we did that!", there actions (and at times words) proclaim.
Can you honestly say, when listening to politicians, that any of them (save perhaps some on the local level) are acting in their role as public leaders according to the vision of the Sermon on the Mount? Are any of them striving to establish the Kingdom of God? So, why are they, politicians and pundits, being treated as leaders of Christianity? What training, calling, and experience do they have in Christian discipleship, in leading with a servant's heart?
On of the great tragedies here is that God has called his people to far more. To a more abundant and purposeful life here and now through radical self-denial and service. Take back the country for God, the culture? Why would God want them, he's already spelled out his plans for a far greater prize.
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.
So he said to me, “This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel: ‘Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit,’ says the LORD Almighty.
Speaking to the generation that returned to Jerusalem from Exile, the prophet Zechariah rebukes the timidity of the people, encouraging them to finish the work on rebuilding the Temple. From a practical standpoint, the Israelites were a shell of their former might and glory. No longer an independent kingdom, no longer the possessors of a beautiful city with mighty walls and a magnificent temple. And yet, and this is the key, the LORD Almighty sees no reason why the Temple cannot be rebuilt.
God does NOT calculate possibilities based upon human power; period. Why? Because he's God!!
The advancement of the Kingdom of God is likewise NOT based upon the availability and use of human power. Laws, armies, wealth, privilege, status, none of them are necessary for God to fulfill his purpose in this world. Why? Because his purpose is a spiritual purpose, first and foremost, the saving of the Lost by the effective sharing of the Gospel and the transformation of the redeemed into Christ-likeness. In the end, human power is not only unnecessary to advance this agenda, history has demonstrated time and time again that it is often counter-productive. In other words, a Church with power, by this world's way of defining it, is typically less effective at its spiritual mission than a Church without power in this world. The classic example of this is the Early Church. Prior to Constantine, the Church was a minority in its culture, without status, without wealth or coercive power. And yet, growth was explosive, and importantly, when martyrs were made it was being done to the Church not by the Church.
'Christian' Nationalism, in a sharp contrast that ought to be a massive warning sign, is focused primarily upon earthly power, as if this is a path toward achieving God's will. To that end, a slogan like, "Take America Back for God" employed by politicians for political ends, is not only disingenuous {Are they actually planning on giving America to God should they win power? Really??}, but also blasphemous. The power they seek is not God's power but their own, the purpose to which they will put power when they achieve it are not God's purposes but their own, and an America wholly under their control would NOT be more honoring and pleasing to God simply because politicians who claim to represent God wield earthly authority. As Han Solo frustrating says in The Force Awakens, "That's not how the Force works!"
Recognizing this dangerous contrast, between the power Christians are called by God to wield (spiritual: serving and sacrificing) and the power that 'Christian' Nationalism grasps after (earthly: dominating and self-advancing), Calvin College historian Kristin Kobes Du Mez wrote, Jesus and John Wayne How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation. Her premise in a nutshell is that Evangelical (and also Fundamentalist) Christians prefer John Wayne to Jesus. Rather than a humble servant willing to forgive his enemies, they prefer a hard charging tough guy ready to destroy them. Unfortunately, her analysis is all too accurate. Just this past week the YouTube channel, When We Understand The Text, whose content is written and narrated by a pastor, fully embraced 'Christian' Nationalism, mocking the weakness of those who warn against its dangers (i.e. wimps like me).
In the end, "thy Kingdom come, thy will be done" is our daily prayer, and as the prophet Zechariah made clear to those willing to listen, it won't be by might or power, but by God's Spirit.
