Christian Nationalism?

In my previous post I repeated my frequent assertion that Christians have a blessing and a duty to vote because our representative republic allows us to express our wishes regarding political issues. (See “Vote Anyway”) This naturally raises the issue of Christian involvement in government. Two of my readers reminded me of the current media interest in Christian Nationalism which does seem to be advocating a theocracy (direct rule by God). As I said before, a theocracy is not what the New Testament describes as our relationship to secular government, nor can it be supported under the guidelines of the US Constitution.

That said, the Bible does give guidance to believers regarding political issues, and the Constitution grants religious input by all while favoring none. Jesus’ most poignant statement regarding secular government came in answer to Pilate’s question about Jesus’ kingship. Jesus did not deny that He is a king, but He made it clear that His kingdom did not involve a worldly domain. It helps to remember that the word used throughout the New Testament for “kingdom” does not imply a physical area. Rather, the Greek sense of the word kingdom leans toward the idea of rulership; those who are ruled by the King are thereby members of His kingdom. This is the basis for both Paul’s and Peter’s assertion that Christian citizenship is other-worldly, heavenly, or spiritual.

Even so, our heavenly citizenship does not release us from earthly responsibilities. The New Testament clearly commands submission to our governing authorities (Paul and Peter). Some might suggest that Paul couldn’t have imagined a representative government like we have. This is not likely the case. The Apostle Paul, being well-educated, raised in a blended Greek/Jewish household, was certainly aware of the Athenian tradition of democracy. True, Roman imperialism was universal throughout the Mediterranean world in which Paul travelled and emperor worship was expected, but the Romans allowed other religions to practice their beliefs as long as they did not subvert Rome’s governance.

It was in this climate that the Apostles taught believers to submit to earthly governments. In 21^st century America, believers have the same responsibility to submit but with an added benefit: we can participate in our government. At the fringes of the Moral Majority movement of the last century, the concept of a theocracy was debated. Today’s Christian nationalism movement has reignited that debate. Christianity Today has a helpful article which differentiates Christianity from Christian nationalism. They explain that historically Christians have, “worked to advance Christian principles, not Christian power or Christian culture, which is the key distinction between normal Christian political engagement and Christian nationalism. Normal Christian political engagement is humble, loving, and sacrificial; it rejects the idea that Christians are entitled to primacy of place in the public square or that Christians have a presumptive right to continue their historical predominance in American culture.” (Read full article)

The entitlement mentality of many who espouse Christian nationalism is perhaps its worst feature. Christianity Today reports that some in the movement believe they must protect the “predominant “Anglo-Protestant” culture to ensure the survival of American democracy.” This quickly devolves into an un-Christian attitude that, “Christians are entitled to primacy of place in the public square because they are heirs of the true or essential heritage of American culture.” The “Anglo” insinuation in their mindset has rightly earned the accusation of white supremacy which is obviously unbiblical. Nothing could be farther from the truth expressed by Paul that in Christ, there are no racial distinctions in Christ’s kingdom.

The majority of the public sees the name “Christian” applied to this group of nationalists and assumes they represent all Christians. This is at least partially a result of the condition I warned against in my previous post: many people are not careful to discern truth from lies. Anyone can call himself a Christian, as the writers of the New Testament warned us. (timothy, 1 cor. 12, ) Non-believers are essentially unequipped to make this distinction. It is a believer’s first responsibility to examine the claims of a person or movement to decide if their position aligns with biblical truth. The second, perhaps equally important thing believers must do is live their true Christianity “out loud” as Lippa and Crawley poetically recommend.

I am going to present one issue as an example of the difference between a Christian nationalist approach and a truly Christian approach. A few days ago, I was watching a particularly depressing news commentary outlining the shameful way the trans-gender lobby is pushing “life-affirming” therapies and surgery on confused teen-agers. I was reminded how in one generation we have gone from homosexual and transexual ideologies being taboo to their being normalized, despite sound scientific evidence that gender dysphoria causes severe emotional and psychological problems.

The science is evident in a recent government publication. The National Library of Medicine, an arm of the National Institutes of Health, reported on a Swedish study over a thirty-year period which found that individuals who underwent sexual reassignment therapies (hormonal or surgical) were far more likely to have serious mental health issues than the straight population. Their conclusion was in part that, “Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism.”

 The author of the Swedish study claims that this proves more attention needs to be paid to “gender-affirming” care. The NLM review comes to a similar conclusion stating that the dire revealed by the study, “should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group.” I would suggest that it should inspire Christians to be more forceful in proclaiming the biblical truth that gender dysphoria is a mental (and spiritual) condition that places a person at risk.

In America today, the biblical position on human sexuality has become hate speech and is punishable by law in many instances. This issue represents a body of lies Christians are told they must accept as truth. The radical Christian nationalist position on this issue is that all sexual deviancies must be criminalized. That would be theocracy in action as per Old Testament law. That is not biblical by New Testament standards. The correct Christian response should be what the Christianity Today article suggests: humble, loving, sacrificial, and I would add, instructive intervention as a testament to the truth.

I believe it is our Christian responsibility to represent Christ in response to all our 21^st century issues. However, as sojourners or ambassadors from another kingdom, we should not expect to find our rules of behavior, the “law of Christ,” fully encoded in America’s laws. That is the Christian nationalist goal. The true Christian goal is to be the salt and light Jesus commanded; our goal is to, “become blameless and innocent, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverted generation, among whom you shine as stars in the world.”

Related posts: Christophobia; Christophobia Part 2; Bringing the Kingdom; Curtain, Please; Think or Swim; Loyal Opposition;