My article on the current Christian Nationalism movement was published by Theopolis. Here are some additional older notes I put together that cover some ground not covered in the Theopolis essay (some of this material has been posted to X; a few bits and pieces of it probably did make it into the Theopolis essay).
—
If Jesus is king, neutrality is a myth. We are either for Jesus or against Jesus in everything we do. We are either serving him as Lord, or serving some other lord, in every endeavor.
—
Political preaching is a significant part of the Reformed political tradition Calvin’s sermons, eg, on Deuteronomy and Samuel, continually touched on political issues The Puritans were known to address kings and other magistrates in their sermons There would have been no American War for Independence without “the black robed regiment” – preachers who applied the Word of God to the political issues facing the colonies Election Day sermons had a long running history in British and American Reformed/Protestant churches The attempt to keep preachers from making political application from the pulpit has more in common with the novel “radical two kingdom view” than historic Protestant political theology
—
Jesus Christ is King of kings and Lord of lords. This is an objective fact about the universe. It is reality. It’s true, even if not acknowledged. The whole universe is a Christocracy. Of course, that means every nation is already a Christocracy, existing under Christ’s universal reign, even if the nations refuse to acknowledge and submit to Christ. All authority in heaven and on earth is his. Fulfilling the Great Commission is simply getting the nations to come to grips with what is already true. It’s getting them in touch with reality.
—
“Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD” (Psalm 33:12).
This verse presupposes every nation has a g/God. A blessed nation chooses the true God its Lord. A nation with some other god will be cursed. Nations that serve other gods are really serving demons. Or to put it another way, a blessed nation is chosen by God (the rest of the verse calls the blessed nation his “heritage/inheritance”). This can’t be limited to old covenant Israel. Any nation that, as a nation, seeks the kingdom of God is a “chosen” and “blessed” nation in the sense of Psalm 33; that nation becomes God’s inheritance and brings its treasures into his kingdom (cf. Isaiah 60). Psalm 33:12 needs to be read in light of God’s purpose in Genesis 12: every nation will be blessed in Abraham’s promised seed. In Psalm 2, when David calls on the other kings to kiss the Son (the Messiah/Christ), he’s calling on them to enter into the blessedness of Psalm 33. He’s calling on the kings of the earth to make their God the Lord.
“Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people (Proverbs 14:34).
This proverb shows us that any nation – not just old covenant Israel – can be blessed and exalted. Any nation that seeks to obey God, to please God, to serve God, as a nation, will be exalted. Any nation that lives in rebellion against God will bring reproach and shame upon itself. Nations discipled in righteousness (= nations in which the Great Commission is fulfilled) are glorious nations.
Note that Proverbs 14:34 is about national greatness. In an age of MAGA, we should take note. This proverb could be paraphrased, “righteousness makes a nation great.” There is no national greatness for America, or any other nation, outside of pursuing righteousness, as defined by God. To make a nation great requires making that nation righteous, according to the law of God.
—
Calvin on the purpose of civil government:
“Yet civil government has as its appointed end, so long as we live among men, to cherish and protect the outward worship of God, to defend sound doctrine of piety and the position of the church, ato adjust our life to the society of men, to form our social behavior to civil righteousness, to reconcile us with one another, and to promote general peace and tranquillity.”
This should be compared to the original version of the WCF chapter 23 on the civil magistrate. I’ve highlighted the sections that especially overlap with Calvin’s short summary:
“ II. It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate, when called thereunto;(b) in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth;(c) so for that end, they may lawfully now, under the New Testament, wage war, upon just and necessary occasion.(d)
III. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven:(e) yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be. preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed.(f) For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.(g)“
The Westminster divines were basically channeling Calvin in this section.
—
Some people express concerns about “marrying religious faith to political power.” But this marriage is inescapable. All law is an expression of morality, and all morality has a religious basis. There is no way to separate out religion from political power. Religion is always already there because man is inescapably religious. The religion may be true or it may be false, it may be the worship of the true God or an idol, but the religious element will always be there. There is simply no way to purge religion out of politics.
Consider this from Deuteronomy 4:6-8:
“[6] Keep them and do them, for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’ [7] For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as the LORD our God is to us, whenever we call upon him? [8] And what great nation is there, that has statutes and rules so righteous as all this law that I set before you today?”
Comparing different systems of law is essentially comparing different gods. Which G/god has the best law? If Israel has obeyed the law God delivered to them through Moses (which they rarely ever did for an extended period of time), the other nations would have marveled, not only at the superiority of their politics, justice, and legal system, but at the superiority of their God to the gods of the other nations. They would have been drawn to Israel’s God like moths to a flame.
Seeking to implement biblical principles in our political system actually serves an apologetic and evangelistic purpose. It proves that the God revealed in the Bible is superior to all other gods. A politics anf culture shaped by the Bible is inherently superior to other politics and cultures. When some contemporary Christians say they want to keep their faith out of politics, they are not only missing an opportunity to love their neighbor and seek the good of their nation, they are missing a tremendous evangelistic opportunity. My question for these Christians who have privatized their faith is simple: what god has a better law system that the God of the Bible? If you reject God’s Word as a source of political truth and wisdom, what are you going to replace it with? What god do you want to serve in the public square instead of the God?
—
Two main developments defined the second half of the second half of the 20th century:
The pill – introduced in 1963, separating sex from marriage and children. This was supposed to liberate women from the burdens of reproduction. It caused a social andf cultural revolution we are still reeling from, and has aided and abetted the destruction of womenhood/motherhood and the family.
Abortion – made legal in 1973, made the sexual revolution the bloodiest revolution of them all. Abortion made man sovereign over the life and death of society’s most vulnerable members, the unborn. Or to be more precise, it made women sovereign over life and death of society’s most vulnerable members. To be frank, having this power had destroyed many modern women. It has destroyed femininity. It has marginalized motherhood. It sidelined fathers, who have no say in a decision that is “between a woman and her doctor.”
—
Thinking about the “nationalism” part of Christian nationalism…
Jeremiah 29:7 teaches God’s people living in a foreign land to “seek the peace of the city where I have caused you to be carried away captive, and pray to the Lord for it; for in its peace, you will have peace.” While this mentions a city rather than a nation, it establishes a principle: We should seek the good of the place where we live. And what could be better for our city, state, or nation than obeying God and submitting to King Jesus? The Christian nationalism program is a way of seeking the peace of the nation. It’s a way of seeking what it truly best for our nation. It is based on the realization that the best thing for a nation, as for an indidivual, is to seek first the kingdom of God.
We see others seeking the good of their own people: Esther who interceded for her people; Daniel who prayed for his people; Paul who was willing to be cut off if would bring salvation to his people, and commanded Christians to pray for the rulers of their nation; etc. Of course, it could be argued many of these cases of old covenant “nationalism” are tied to Israel’s special role in redemptive-historical, and therefore are not a model for us. While it is true nations today do not have the same function as old covenant Israel’s unique place in history, I do not think we can completely dismiss the analogy. The love that Jeremiah, Esther, etc. had for Israel was certainly tied to her redemptive-historical role, but not limited to it. I would not argue that we should love our nations the exact same way that old covenant Israelites loved their nation because their nation was going to bring Messiah into the world. But love of nation is certainly exemplified in a positive way.
Interestingly, Tim Keller and a lot of Big Eva talked up the city over the last several decades – it was a kind of cityism (perhaps even “Christian cityism”?). But why can’t this same logic (and loyalty) be applied to the nation? If we can love our cities and seek their good, why can’t we do the same with our nations?
—
Why is acceptable to a Christian cityist but not a Christian nationalist? Why is it permissible to be for the city, but not for the nation?
Tim Keller famously promoted the view that Christians should seek the good of the city in which they live. You might call his view a kind of “Christian cityism.” He even advocated Christians seeking political power and then using that power to promote a Christian vision of justice in the city. Seeking the good of the city on explicitly Christian terms was a focus of his ministry, rooted in Jeremiah 29:7.
My question: if Christian cityism is a legitimate way for Christians to implement explicitly Christian principles in their cities, why can’t this be done at the national level as well? It would be odd to accept “Christian cityism” but reject “Christian nationalism.”
I realize Keller did not use this terminology. I also realize some may question his application of Jeremiah 29 on redemptive-historical grounds. But Keller definitely wanted Christians to pursue the Christianization of the city. So I ask again: why is it so controversial to advocate for the Christianization of the nation? If we can have cities influence by Christian teachings, why can’t we have nations likewise influenced by Christian teachings?
Keller used to talk quite a bit about God’s love for cities. But it’s clear from Scripture God also loves nations. Nations have a special role in God’s plan – the nations were promised to Abraham in Genesis 12, promised to the Messiah in Psalm 2, and promised to the church in Matthew 28. God is the Savior of nations. Keller wanted to see a transformed social order at the city level; why not seek the same at the national level?
I realize Keller’s particular vision of what a transformed and Christianized social order in the city would look like differs in several particulars from the current “Christian nationalism” movement. But the debate over Christian nationalism in many conservative denominations is not over those particulars; it over the very nature of the project itself. This seems like special pleading. Why is it ok to love the city, seek the good of the city, pursue power in the city, and implement Christian principles of justice in the city, but not do all the same things at the national level?
One possible answer is that Keller did not actually want to Christianize the city, but only gain “a place at the table” for Christians. In other words, he accepted and operated within the secular liberal framework, and therefore was not really a threat to ideological pluralism the way the current Christian nationalism movement is a threat to that order. Another possible, and obviously related, answer is that Keller’s political vision was not really fully biblical; instead he cherry-picked biblical teachings that fit with modern urban sensibilities. Keller was generally biblical on sexual ethics (his acceptance of Revoice excepted), but he never tied that sexual ethic to politics (eg, the biblical definition of marriage, abortion, etc.). He kept his sex ethic privatized in the most controversial areas; he only tied his ethic to politics in areas that would not be controversial in his urban, liberal, egalitarian context. By contrast, the current Christian nationalism movement wants to see abortion criminalized, Obergefell overturned, divorce laws reformed, etc. – all issues Keller would not touch in his advocacy for “justice” in the public square. No doubt, much more could be said here, and I probably will say more at some point, but this is a start.
Actually one could argue the opposite. CNs generally want a small, limited government, with lower taxes, etc. Keller was a lifelong Democrat. All civil government uses coercive power. It just a matter of what it’s used to coerce.
Now if outlawing abortion, overturning Obergefell, etc., is “compelling” people to adhere to certain Christian norms, then you have a point. But CNs think those things serve the common good, not just the “Christian good.” CNs aren’t revolutionaries, and don’t advocate using violence to advance their agenda.
Actually one could argue the opposite. CNs generally want a small, limited government, with lower taxes, etc. Keller was a lifelong Democrat. All civil government uses coercive power. It just a matter of what it’s used to coerce.
Now if outlawing abortion, overturning Obergefell, etc., is “compelling” people to adhere to certain Christian norms, then you have a point. But CNs think those things serve the common good, not just the “Christian good.” CNs aren’t revolutionaries, and don’t advocate using violence to advance their agenda.
—
Some are very worried about “marrying faith to power.” But this is inevitable. Everyone is religious. They may be Muslim, Christian, Hindu or whatever. Even if they say they are secular, they still have a religion. It’s the religion of humanism – man as god. So faith will always be married to power. It’s inescapable.
Have some Christians (nominal or otherwise) throughout history done terrible things with political power? Sure, I grant that. But that does not mean Christians should never seek political power. (And if we did think that, we’d have to argue Christians should not even vote, since voting is an exercise of political power.)
Religion never goes away and political power never goes away. Christian nationalism just claims that the most judicious way to use political power is in alignment with the principles found in God’s Word. Those who reject Christian nationalism are basically claiming there is some other god who is wiser and has a better law than the Lord Jesus.
This is my question for Christians who reject Christian nationalism: What god is wiser than the biblical God? What god has a better law than the one God gave to Moses? (See Deuteronomy 4).
—
Calvin on the purpose of civil government (doing his best “Christian nationalist” impressions and foreshadowing the original version of the WCF on the civil magistrate):
“Yet civil government has as its appointed end, so long as we live among men, to cherish and protect the outward worship of God, to defend sound doctrine of piety and the position of the church, ato adjust our life to the society of men, to form our social behavior to civil righteousness, to reconcile us with one another, and to promote general peace and tranquillity.”
Another translation:
“….it is assigned [to civil government], so long as we live among men, to foster and maintain the external worship of God, to defend sound doctrine and the condition of the Church, to adapt our conduct to human society, to form our manners to civil justice, to conciliate us to each other, to cherish common peace and tranquillity.”
Taken from ICR 4.20.2.
—
Like most everything else, there are good and bad forms of nationalism. Nationalism can certainly imply a kind of idolatry of the nation, a “my nation, right or wrong,” kind of approach. Chesterton said this was like saying, “my mother, drunk or sober.” History is littered with examples of nationalistic idolatry. It is a real danger. We should guard against it. The wrong kind of nationalism has inspired war and greed. It has produced tyranny and oppression. It is a great evil.
But there is also a good kind of nationalism – the kind of nationalism that recognizes God has organized humanity into covenantal entities called “nations,” determining the “allotted periods and the boundaries” of their existence in his providence. Nations, like families, are part of God’s design for humanity. Particular nations are contingent; nations come and go from history. Once there was no such thing as a United States of America, now there is; there as once a Hittite nation, now there is not. But nations endure. God promised Abraham the nations. The Messiah will inherit the nations. The church is called to disciple the nations. The rulers of the nations will bring their “peculiar treasures” into Christ’s kingdom. Virtuous nationalism is a kind of patriotism – a love for the land of one’s birth and citizenship; a love for all that is good about its people, heritage, and history; and a determined desire to reform one’s homeland in areas where it still falls short of obedience to God’s will. Just as we should reject and guard against the wrong kind of nationalism, we should cultivate and encourage the right kind of nationalism.
Nationalism is inescapable. It’s not a question whether but which — not whether or not we will be nationalists, but what kind of nationalists we will be. Some want their nation absorbed into a globalist glob, a kind of multi-cultural anti-nation nationalism; others want a nation formed by progressive and Marxist sensibilities, a nation that prioritizes DEI, LGBTQ+, and so on; still others are Islamic nationalists, desiring the nation to acknowledge Allah and implement Sharia; and, yes, there are also Christian nationalists, who desire to see Christ, his Word, and his church given proper recognition and influence in the cultural, social, familial, and economic life of the nation. The culture war is not a battle of nationalists vs. non-nationalists, but Christian nationalists vs. other kinds of nationalists. The oddity at the moment is that many Christians are too confused or cowardly to advocate for a true and proper Christian nationalism. But by failing to advocate for Christian nationalism, they are inevitably and inescapably advocating for some other kind of nationalism.
ADDENDUM: I advocate for a king and kingdom that claims every square inch of earthly turf because all authority in heaven and earth has been given to this king. And, yes, he has established lighthouses of his kingdom all over, but those lighthouses are supposed to actually transform and disciple all earthly nations so God’s will is done on earth as it is heaven.
—
There is one true king, King Jesus, who rules over all. There are two kingdoms, as Jesus’ kingdom is locked in battle with Satan’s kingdom. This is the antithesis that cuts through rhe human race. Jesus’ kingdom will win, overthrowing the kingdom of darkness. And Jesus’ kingdom is manifested right now, whenever and wherever his people, by faith, obey him in any area of life.
—
No one seems thrilled with the term, “Christian nationalism.” I’m certainly not happy with it myself. And if it continues to be highjacked by crazy people from the fringe, it will probably need to be replaced sooner rather than later. I think the label as a kind of placeholder until something more suitable comes along. But like other labels, e.g., “Christian Reconstruction,” “Theonomy,” “Federal Vision,” and even “Calvinism,” it can serve a useful, if limited, purpose for now. Labels like these usually get employed for a while, then fade away; that does not mean the package of convictions they represent go away or that it was just a fad; the convictions just eventually get repackaged with a new term. (“Calvinism” would be the rare exception, as it’s a label with staying power across centuries.) I was reluctant to adopt the “Christian nationalism” tag for a while but have chosen to embrace it until it seems counter-productive to do so. And as with many other labels, even if I did not use it for myself, others would would apply it to me. So why fight it? Just go with it and see what happens.
—
How can someone give an honest reading of Westminster Confession chapter 23 (both versions) and not conclude it teaches some form of “Christian nationalism”?
The same goes for Belgic Confession chapter 36.
—
The Westminster Larger Catechism is clearly a pro-Christian Nationalist document (which only makes sense since the Westminster Assembly was called in order to create new confessional documents for a state church):
Q. 191. What do we pray for in the second petition?
A. In the second petition, (which is, Thy Kingdom come,) acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fulness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrates; that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him for ever: and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.
Note the “countenanced and maintained” language there — it gives a very definite and positive role for the magistrate in promoting and protecting the true religion.
—
Christian faith is good for society, but it cannot be reduced to an instrument of social betterment. The power of Christian faith to transform society is a by-product of its truth and its perfect fit with reality; treating it as beneficial solely for pragmatic reasons will actually subvert its transformative power.
—
A. A. Hodge argued Christ is king over the state every bit as much as the church, and warned what would happen if Christians abandoned the pursuit of an explicitly Christian politics:
“And if Christ is really King, exercising original and immediate jurisdiction over the State as really as he does over the Church, it follows necessarily that the general denial or neglect of his rightful lordship, any prevalent refusal to obey that Bible which is the open lawbook of his kingdom, must be followed by political and social as well as by moral and religious ruin. If professing Christians are unfaithful to the authority of their Lord in their capacity as citizens of the State, they cannot expect to be blessed by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in their capacity as members of the Church. The kingdom of Christ is one, and cannot be divided in life or in death. If the Church languishes, the State cannot be in health, and if the State rebels against its Lord and King, the Church cannot enjoy his favor. If the Holy Ghost is withdrawn from the Church, he is not present in the State; and if he, the only “Lord, the Giver of life,” be absent, then all order is impossible and the elements of society lapse backward to primeval night and chaos.”
Hodge then gave several examples of what was happening because Christians failed to be salt and light in the public square:
“Who is responsible for the unholy laws and customs of divorce which have been in late years growing rapidly, like a constitutional cancer, through all our social fabric? Who is responsible for the rapidly-increasing, almost universal, desecration of our ancestral Sabbath?
Who is responsible for the prevalent corruptions in trade which loosen the bands of faith and transform the halls of the honest trader into the gambler’s den? Who is responsible for the new doctrines of secular education which hand over the very baptized children of the Church to a monstrous propagandism of Naturalism and Atheism?
Who is responsible for the new doctrine that the State is not a creature of God and owes him no allegiance, thus making the mediatorial Headship of Christ an unsubstantial shadow and his kingdom an unreal dream?
Whence come these portentous upheavals of the ancient primitive rock upon which society has always rested? Whence comes this socialistic earthquake, arraying capital and labor in irreconcilable conflict like oxygen and fire? Whence come these mad nihilistic, anarchical ravings, the wild presages of a universal deluge, which will blot out at once the family, the school, the church, the home, all civilization and religion, in one sea of ruin?”
Sadly, not many heeded his warnings 140+ years ago and we see the result in our culture today.
—
As early as 1886, A. A. Hodge had the socialists and Marxists figured out:
“Whence comes this socialistic earthquake, arraying capital and labor in irreconcilable conflict like oxygen and fire? Whence come these mad nihilistic, anarchical ravings, the wild presages of a universal deluge, which will blot out at once the family, the school, the church, the home, all civilization and religion, in one sea of ruin?”
Hodge understood that the socialists and Marxists were aiming at social division, starting with class warfare. He understood their aim to destroy the pillars of society – not just the church, but family, home, school, and indeed all of Western civilization. Socialism is not to be trifled with. Socialism and Marxism are destructive forces.
—
In 1886, A. A. Hodge asked his fellow Presbyterians, “Who is responsible for the new doctrine that the State is not a creature of God and owes him no allegiance, thus making the mediatorial Headship of Christ an unsubstantial shadow and his kingdom an unreal dream?”
Apparently, the idea that the state is not accountable to acknowledge and obey the true God was a novelty in his day, at least among Presbyterians. Hodge believed the mediatorial lordship of Christ extended to the state, and the state owes Christ full allegiance.
—
In 1886, A. A. Hodge asked how fellow Presbyterians, “Who is responsible for the new doctrines of secular education which hand over the very baptized children of the Church to a monstrous propagandism of Naturalism and Atheism?”
It’s still a pretty good question….
—
Was A. A. Hodge a “Christian nationalist”? Did the Presbyterian church form a study committee after he delivered his lecture (from which the quotation below comes) in 1886? Did they call him a “menace”? Did Banner of Truth get challenged for republishing Hodge’s dangerous political opinions in 1976 (reprinted in 1990)?
“If Christ is really king, exercising original and immediate jurisdiction over the state as really as He does over the Church, it follows necessarily that the general denial or neglect of His rightful lordship, any prevalent refusal to obey that Bible which is the law-book of His kingdom, must be followed by political and social as well as moral and religious ruin. If professing Christians are unfaithful to the authority of their Lord in their capacity as citizens of the state, they cannot expect to be blessed by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in their capacity as members of the Church. The kingdom of Christ is one and cannot be divided in life or in death. If the Church languishes, the state cannot be in health, and if the state rebels against its Lord and King, the Church cannot enjoy His favor. If the Holy Spirit is withdrawn from the Church He is not present in the state, and if He, the only “Lord and Giver of Life,” be absent, then all order is impossible and the elements of society lapse backward to primeval night and chaos.
Who is responsible for the unholy laws and customs of divorce which have been in late years growing rapidly like a constitutional cancer, through all our social fabric?… Who is responsible for the new doctrines of secular education which hand over the very baptized children of the church to a monstrous propagandism of naturalism at atheism? Who is responsible for the new doctrine that the state is not a creature of God and owes him no allegiance, thus making the mediatorial headship of Christ an unsubstantial shadow and his kingdom an unreal dream?…
In the name of your own interests I plead with you; in the name of your treasure-houses and barns; of your rich farms and cities; of your accumulations in the past and your hopes in the future I charge you – you never will be secure if you do not faithfully maintain all the crown-rights of Jesus, the King of men. In the name of your children and their inheritance of the precious Christian civilization you in turn have received from your sires; in the name of the Christian Church — I charge you that its sacred franchise, religious liberty, cannot be retained by men who in civil matters deny their allegiance to the King. In the name of your own soul and its salvation; in the name of that adorable Victim of that bloody and agonizing sacrifice whence you draw all your hopes of salvation; by Gethsemane and Calvary — I charge you, citizens of the United States, afloat on your wide sea of politics, THERE IS ANOTHER KING, ONE JESUS: THE SAFETY OF THE STATE CAN BE SECURED ONLY IN THE WAY OF HUMBLE AND WHOLE-SOULED LOYALTY TO HIS PERSON AND OF OBEDIENCE TO HIS LAW.”
Note that in this same lecture, he attacks the public school system, arguing that “a centralized system of national education separated from religion…will prove the most appalling enginery for the propagation of anti-Christian and atheistic unbelief, and of anti-social nihilistic ethics, individual, social, and political, which this sin-rent world has ever seen….The prevalent superstition that men can be educated for good citizenship, or for any other use under heaven, without religion, is as unscientific and unphilosophical as it is irreligious….morals are impossible when disassociated from the religious basis out of which they grow.”
Can anyone deny, almost 140 years later, that he was right about education?
—
Scripture is filled with political truths, political principles, political wisdom, political stories. The whole Bible is the story of a kingdom. The Bible is inescapably political from beginning to end.
Huge swaths of the OT, from the Torah, to the prophets, to the psalms, are loaded with political teaching. In Psalm 2, David speaks as one king to other kings. The test of Israel’s monarchs was always their submission to the Word of the Lord, delivered through the prophets. The OT shows God judges not just individuals but nations.
The NT continues to address all kinds of political issues, from how to be a good soldier, to paying taxes, to the true source of earthly political authority. The central claim of the gospel in NT preaching is “Jesus is Lord” — and this was a claim that not only applied to personal salvation and ethics, but to politics as well. The whole point is that if Jesus is Lord, then Caesar is not. That’s why they rioted when Paul preached “another King, Jesus” in Acts 17. The Great Commission requires the church to disciple nations as nations — which certainly includes discipling individuals, but also institutions.
There is no way a pastor can be a faithful expositor of God’s Word and not preach political sermons. We do not have to “make” the Bible political; the political is always already there. The Word of God equips the man of God for every good work, including good political works. Historically, pastors have been considered public persons. Even as the magistrate has a role in promoting the true religion, so the pastor has a role in promoting true justice; this is taught in the Westminster Confession of Faith and other historic Protestant confessions. Melville was right: the pulpit is always the prow of the culture.
Throughout the history of the church, political preaching (in the sense of sermons that routinely make political applications, speak to citizens as citizens and magistrates as magistrates, etc.) has been so commonplace that such sermons were not considered anything special. Calvin preached sermons aimed at the city council in Geneva, and saw the pastorate as a quasi-political office that served not only his congregation but the wider welfare of the whole community. American Presbyterians in the late colonial and Revolutionary War era were called the “black robed regiment” because their preaching stirred biblical support for the cause. I have a book on my shelf entitled “Political Sermons of the American Founding Era” that runs about 1600 pages and it’s only a representative sampling. Only in the modern, secularized West have pastors meekly and cowardly complied with their own political muzzling.
None of this is to say that the pastor’s teaching is *primarily* political. Obviously not. Pastors are not (merely) chaplains to the state, they are ambassadors of a kingdom that is not of this world. But Scripture gives a political vision, a vision of what the good common life looks like, and pastors should certainly teach this vision in the course of their regular pastoral duties. Pastors have to exegete the text, but they also have to exegete the culture in which they live so they can make wise application to the lives of their people. Because we will always be political creatures, pastors must always have something to say about the political dimensions of life. The Bible gives us the key to eternal bliss and temporal happiness; it deals not just with individuals but cultures; it addresses not just the soul but society. When preachers preach “Jesus is Lord,” as they must, they are making a political declaration.
—
In the NT, after people are converted, they are still identified by their ethnicity. Paul is a good example of this. After becoming a Christian, he continues to be an ethnic Jew and a Roman citizen.
—
This podcast was a good discussion of Christian Nationalism, especially as it relates to political preaching, theonomy, race and ethnicity, etc.:
—
A few thoughts on this….
I certainly agree with @PerfInjust that his Christian nationalism project is distinct from theonomy, Christian reconstruction, and so forth. There are significant differences there that warrant ongoing discussion.
But I also see why a lot of people are going to lump us all together. For one thing, Wolfe’s book was published by Canon. Canon’s penumbra has always been theonomic. @douglaswils and many associated with him ARE theonomists/reconstructionists. I don’t know where else Wolfe might have shopped his book in terms of publishers, but the fact that Canon picked it up created certain associations (in both directions) that everyone involved needs to reckon with, even if its awkward. Wolfe and Wilson obviously do not agree on everything, but there is also some broad family resemblance in their positions. Canon played a huge role in morphing the theonomy discussion into the Christian Nationalism discussion. It’s a just new label for a new phase in an going discussion. Are there new wrinkles in Christian nationalism compared to theonomy? Yes, most especially the role that some want race to play in American nationhood. But there is also a lot of overlap.
Second, the theonomists and reconstructionists were VERY interested in historic Reformed political theology. They interacted extensively with the primary sources. The Journal of Reconstruction republished Mather’s An Abstract of the Laws of New England around 1979. A lot of JCR essays over the years were historical in nature, aiming to show that theonomy had at least broad precedent in the Reformed tradition. A 1991 Biblical Horizons Conference on Calvinism and Theocracy included detailed lectures on Althusius’ Politica — many of us have been familiar with Althusius for over 30 years. Gary North complained way back then that Banner of Truth was creating an entirely inaccurate picture of Puritanism by republishing their works on piety but not politics. North himself had a hand in getting some of Calvin’s more intensely political sermons republished in the book The Covenant Enforced. Rushdoony and North both published detailed studies of America’s political origins and the role of Christian faith in shaping our nation (and came to very different conclusions). Doug Kelly was closely associated with theonomy and reconstructionism, and he published one of the best historical studies of Calvinist politics, The Emergence of Liberty in the Modern World, a book I’d still heartily recommend. David Chilton’s work often made sweeping and historically insightful claims about the influence of Christian faith on Western civilization, from the medieval period through the Reformers. And so on. Reading “old books” is not a new development. Whatever it’s flaws, reconstructionism at its most vital was an intellectual powerhouse.
Third, when contemporary Christian Nationalists critique modern liberalism, 90% of what they say sounds almost exactly like what theonomists of various stripes were saying back in the 1980s and 1990s. The critique of liberalism from the Christian right is nothing new. Yes, some recons (and their heirs) have been (or have become) staunch defenders of *classical* liberalism — but what do they by “classical liberalism”? It’s certainly distinguishable from modern liberalism, and does not seem incompatible with the Christian Nationalism project since at the time of America’s founding, numerous states had established churches and religious tests for office, sodomy and blasphemy were criminalized, etc. — basically, at the time of American’s founding, Christians norms normed society as a whole.
And it seems to me that’s the deep commonality between these various approaches to Christian nationhood, whether of the theonomic, Jordanite//theocratic, or Wolfite variety — they all want Christian norms to norm the nation’s politics and culture. They all want some version of Christendom. They want everyone to live under the Christian gaze. Again, I admit there are differences (e.g., the role of natural law, the place of free markets, perhaps even the way a Christian nation would handle immigration, and so on). But there is an unmistakable family resemblance too. The Reformed pietists (for lack of a better label) in NAPARC who are soteriology-only Calvinists, and who think a “neutral,” pluralistic “marketplace of ideas” public square is the ideal are going to undoubtedly lump us all together. They see us all a threat. Reformed history is one our side, but getting the present day Reformed church on our side may be a different matter.
Sidenote: Since Wolfe mentions FV, I should point out that many of the same claims can be made there. FV was always a “treasures old, treasures new” kind of discussion. But it was definitely a “Reformed catholic” thing from the start — it most certainly grew out of the Reformed tradition at its best and the work that many of us did associated with FV was historical in nature. A great deal work I did that came to be associated with FV was deeply historical in nature, so much so that I’ve said (tongue-in-cheek, of course), “To be deep in Reformed history is to be FV.” I first wrote on the efficacy of baptism in the Reformed tradition around the year 2000, in papers loaded with historical quotations and citations from Protestant history. Just as with traditional Reformed political theology, so with Reformed baptismal theology — most pastors and seminary profs in the ostensibly conservative Reformed denominations just weren’t interested, or weren’t knowledgeable enough to have a worthwhile discussion. But FVers cared about the history and often made appeal to it. Most of the FV guys were considered a “menace” 20+ years ago not only because of their sacramental theology but also because everyone knew they wanted a public and political version of the Reformed faith to dominate. (There’s actually a deep link between a strong doctrine of baptismal efficacy and public/political theology, e.g., in the medieval period, a doctrine of civil resistance grew out of baptismal theology.) For those who were not involved in what went on in the theonomic controversy of the 80s/90s or the FV controversy of the early 2000s, it may seem like the current Christian Nationalism controversy is genuinely new — but it really isn’t. It’s just another iteration of a longstanding split in the Reformed world. Yes, there are subsplits on each side too, but the major fault line is not hard to find. Many of the same characters (on both sides) are involved and many of the issues overlap. During FV, there were only a small handful of NAPARC men really capable of engaging the issues intelligently, and most men who got involved just embarrassed themselves. It seems history is very likely to repeat itself with the NAPARC Christian Nationalism discussion, study reports, etc. The same men who are not classical Protestants on baptismal efficacy are not really classical Protestants on politics either. God have mercy.
—
A follow up on my X post:
When I made this post, I had not yet listened to the Wilson/Wolfe discussion on “Man Rampant.” If you’re interested in these issues, I would definitely encourage you to listen to that interview. I think it affirms a good bit of what I say here. In particular, I think it shows definitively that the main rift among Christian nationalist is not between theonomists and natural lawyers (though that difference matters too).
I wish Wilson had pressed Wolf harder on a few issues because I think their differences are actually deeper than that discussion let’s on. In particular, issues of race and ethnicity will continue to be the deepest fault line among Christian nationalists. The World War II issue is not hugely significant in itself, except it becomes a kind of proxy issue for the race and ethnicity issue. The attack on Churchill and the lauding of Hitler is quite embarrassing and misguided (though Wolfe does not go this road), but I am hoping these are sins of ignorance that will be corrected as the guys who post this stuff on X actually “do the reading,” as they like to say. Hitler was a statist of the worst sort. Stalin was even more terrible, but Hitler was actually more aggressive and more of a direct threat to the West. This account of the issues by Hanson is pretty good.
A few thoughts on the race issue: Some have pointed out that nobody complains about the fact that Japan is an ethnically homogenous state, so why can’t America be an ethnostate? I think the reason is obvious. America has a very different history from Japan (and from most other nations). [The closest analog I can think of would actually be Israel coming out of Egypt with a mixed multitude, who were incorporated into the nation during their wilderness years.] Indians were already here so as soon as European colonists arrived, the continent was multiracial. Add in the importation of black slaves, and America was even more racially diverse. Then consider the fact that we annexed Alaska and Hawaii, and even further racially diversified our nation. Plus, we have obviously had many immigrants come legally, which, whether it was wise or not, cannot be undone. Personally, I hope Homan and Trump have great success in deporting those who are here illegally. But even if they do, America will remain a multiracial nation — and so we have to find some way to enable these different races to work together and function as a coherent nation.
Perhaps we should take our cues from the early church, which integrated Jewish and Gentile believers into the common life of local congregations. The Christian gospel is really the only way to truly reconcile different racial groups and form them into a coherent people. I understand the problems with the “revivals are our only hope” crowd, but the reality is revival of some sort is a necessary component of getting out of the mess we are in. A secularized America has no way to integrate these different racial groups, which have been here from very early on, into a coherent nation with a coherent culture. And yet that’s what must happen on the other side of deportations if we really want to make America great again. Raw political power will not be enough; we must have spiritual transformation.
America simply can’t bury the racial question. I have no confidence that the state can impose genuine unity, nor is some kind of renewed segregation the answer. Neither forced segregation nor forced integration will work. Affirmative action and DEI mandates are just as destructive and divisive as Jim Crow laws. America’s racial healing was proceeding reasonably well, until Obama‘s election when he resurrected old racial grievances and created new ones.
There are other issues to consider. If the American economy were healthier (less inflation, more housing, better job opportunities, cheaper college degrees, etc.), it would greatly help. Deporting illegals might help with some of these issues, but not all of them. There are more systemic economic issues that must be addresses (deregulation, energy costs, the fed and inflation, etc.). We need a restoration of marriage and family; ending no fault divorce, criminalizing abortion, curbing the welfare state, and other reforms could help. We also have to recognize that many of our deepest divisions are really not racial but religious and spiritual. While there are many conservative whites, whites (especially white women) are among the most aggressively progressive. Progressive policies will continue to wreak havoc until they are stopped and Trump’s re-election is not a sufficient brake.
On the World War II issue, I do not object to revisionist history per se. Wilson pointed this out about his own historical work and I would agree. For example, I think it’s unlikely the Nazis killed 6 million Jews. I do think they killed some significant number of Jews, and that was horrific. But it seems to me the 6 million number is likely exaggerated. However, even if the Nazis didn’t kill Jews in such high numbers, Hitler and the Third Reich were still evil. In no sense is Nazism a model for Christian nationalism and in no sense was Hitler a model Christian Prince. Many orthodox Christians in Germany at the time pointed out the evils Nazi ideology. This should not be a hard issue for anyone who seriously investigates it, instead of going for sensational takes on X.
I know some point to Pat Buchanan’s work on World War II but, frankly, while I am a Buchanan fan, I found his “Unnecessary War” book to be his least impressive work. He gets some basic factual issues wrong. I can agree with many of his criticisms of Churchill; Churchill was far from perfect. But it should be noted that his thesis does not actually flip the narrative — nowhere does he argue that the Nazis were not evil, nowhere does he argue that Hitler was actually the “good guy” of WW2. What he argues is that the war was not necessary — and especially American involvement was not necessary. A good case can be made that we should have stayed out of Europe’s war, and a good case can be made that after we conquered Germany, we should’ve gone on and conquered the Soviets too. We can make a lot of cases for doing something other than what we did. But a good case for the moral superiority of the Nazis cannot be made. The kind of historical revision that a lot of young men on this X argue for today is foolish.
There is something else that strikes me as problematic about Buchanan’s book. Given enough historical runway, I could show how just about every word that’s ever been fought was unnecessary. Again, had things been handled differently in the aftermath of WW1, maybe World War II would’ve been avoided. But history does not have a rewind button. Again, I think a good case can be made that America should’ve stayed out of WW2 altogether or at least waited to swoop in after the European and Russian powers had likely destroyed one another (though as Hanson points out, isolating ourselves could have created a whole new set of disasters). But I also think a good case can be made for doing exactly what we did when we did it. In his discussion with Wilson, Wolfe says he’s not interested in questions about Nazism because they don’t really concern America. But we cannot undo history. We did involve ourselves, and so we do have to care. It became our war too. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Insofar as the 20th century had heroes, American men fit the bill better than anyone else. American men were the heroes of the 20th century. We should be proud of that. We should celebrate the masculinity that defeated the Nazis and created the strongest economy in the world and went on to defeat the Soviets in the Cold War. Yes, obviously all kinds of other garbage entered into American culture in the 20th century after the war; in some ways, we were victims of our own success and have not handled our prosperity with proper vigilance. Obviously, we allowed our nation, especially our universities, to be infiltrated by cultural Marxists who sought the destruction of our country from within. And to be frank, they almost succeeded — almost, but not quite, at least not yet. Right now, we have a chance to turn the tide. Turning the tide is what Christian nationalism is all about. It’s really what MAGA (and MACA) are really all about.
—
Say what you want about Thomas Jefferson’s personal faith (he was not an orthodox Christian), but the Trinitarian structure of the Declaration of Independence is plain. God appears in the document as:
Legislator – he is the God of nature and nature’s laws
Executive – he is the Creator of all and the one who endows all rights
Judge – the signers made their appeal not to the king of England as judge but to God as Supreme Judge
There are traces of the Trinity everywhere, in nature, as in human society…
—
“Our Constitution was made only for a Christian people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams, paraphrased
Adams didn’t actually say “a Christian people.” That’s my paraphrase. He said “a moral and religious people.” But in historical context, “moral and religious” has to be understood as Christian in some form or fashion. What else could it mean? No, he was not personally orthodox, judged by his own words; but he came from a Puritan family, praised the Reformation and Reformers like Luther and Calvin, saw America as a distinctly Protestant nation, and certainly respected the orthodox faith. His point is that the Constitution will only work if the same faith that dominated America at the time of the founding – the Protestant faith – continued to be the core of our way of life. Substitute another morality or another faith, and the Constitution no longer works. America was designed to be Protestant from the outset and that’s reflected in our founding documents and institutions.
—
Bradley Birzer has some great Edmund Burke quotes defending America’s War for Independence here (see also my 7/3/25 X posts).
—
American political options for the foreseeable future will never be as fine-tuned or narrowly parsed as the CN/theonomy debate, so theonomists and CNs will pretty much continue to be part of the same real-world political coalition whether they want to be or not.
—
Is the Christianization of America more likely to happen from a Spirit-wrought revival of the populace that seems to arise from nowhere? Or from a Christian prince who seems to pop up from nowhere and uses political power to impose his views on the people? Or is some third option most likely?
This tweet spawned a good discussion on X, which I hope to follow up on at some point.
—
“Protestants teach unanimously that it is incumbent on kings to find out, receive, embrace, and promote the truth of the gospel, and the worship of God therein, confirming, protecting, and defending it, by their regal power and authority.”
— John Owen
—
A follow up on my Christian nationalism article for Theopolis:
I do not think any Christian nationalists are statists (or socialists), any more than Theonomists are/were libertarians. There may be occasional overlap practically, but philosophically, they are completely different. I did think about adding a fourth “fault line” to the paper on economics, but it was already too long. And besides, I’m just not sure Christian nationalism has a defined economic position of its own. There is no Gary North of the Christian nationalism movement.
My sense is that there is a spectrum of views ranging from those who hold to free markets (morally regulated, of course) to those who would take more of an “economic nationalism” position, particularly regarding tariffs. But I just haven’t really seen these different schools of thought among Christian Nationalists developed (other than what the reconstructionists did a generation ago). Some CNs talk about the outcome they want, but don’t have much to say about how to get there. Wolfe’s book doesn’t do much with economics. Wilson is a free market proponent but has been ok with using tariffs as negotiating tools.
Even if you believe the law of God requires free markets (as I do), you still have to reckon with the fact that in a globalized economy, there are bad actors and not everyone is going to play by the same rules. That kind of complicates things because it means we may not always be able to do in practice what our theory suggests in the abstract.
If a more defined set of economic positions develop within Christian nationalism, I’d like to write on that as well. I just don’t think it’s happened yet.
—
From a discussion with a white identitarian:
As a pastor (in fact as a Christian), I believe I must be concerned with the Christians obtaining cultural and political power, but using that power in ways that are wise, righteous, and just. We do not get to set aside Christian virtue in order to gain power or use it as we please. There are good and bad ways to attain power. There good and bad ways to use power. I want Christians to have power and I want them to wield that power Christianly, but the question is, “What does that mean?”
I believe that the views I’ve articulated concerning politics, race, America, and Christian nationalism, arise out of the Scriptures and out of the Christian political tradition. I have grave concerns about those who are pushing for a white identity politics. But what does a white identity program entail anyway? What does it mean for whites to advocate for themselves? I haven’t seen these questions answered, beyond what Jeremy Carl lays out in his Unprotected Class book (and his suggestions really do not amount to a pure white identity politics). Is it even possible for whites to develop a white identity politics in a meaningful sense if they’re not getting married and having children the way whites have always done up until now? What keeps white identity politics from just being another fad that fizzles out? Who’s gonna run a political campaign on that kind of platform? Who’s going to fund it? It’s terribly disingenuous to say that Trump is actually doing a covert white identity politics when Trump, Hegseth, and others in MAGA have explicitly repudiated white identity politics. If white identity politics is the future, why do the white identitarians on X remain anonymous?
Beyond the racial rhetoric, which I think is unhelpful, what are the specific concrete policies that a white identity politics will push? Is it DEI for white people? Is it affirmative action for white people? One thing I’ve seen online is that we can’t stop with just deporting illegal immigrants; we should deport people who are here legally, if they don’t have a western European heritage. I just don’t see how that would ever be feasible, and it sounds like a horrific injustice.
—
There are three main fault lines within the current Christian nationalism movement:
- The role of the church (and liturgy) in the political discipleship of the nation.
- The relationship of biblical law to natural law.
- The role of race in a properly constituted nation, particularly America, given her peculiar history.
There are other differences (e.g., eschatology), but these are the main ones that stand out at the present moment.
—
Islam is incompatible with the West. History proves this. Europe, especially Great Britain, is currently demonstrating this. Stopping Muslim immigration should be an obvious step we take to restore our nation. This is not a racial thing. It is religious. Sharia law does not belong in America.
—
In so many ways, the current discussions over Christian nationalism parallel discussions of Theonomy/Christian Reconstruction a generation ago. The Recons were also accused of fostering nominalism, seeking salvation in politics, etc. And they gave answers very similar to Joseph’s here (which I agree with). There is a massive blind spot in many expressions of Reformed and evangelical theology today. The pietistic mind cannot wrap itself around the reality that a Christian politics and Christian nations can indeed be (and have been) historical realities. The pietistic mind gets hung up on these sorts of objections because it is trapped in a pluralistic, politics-can-be-neutral way of thinking. Once you accept that there is no neutrality anywhere and Christ is Lord everywhere, everything else falls into place. But that requires refusing to live under the modern liberal gaze which far too few pastors can do.
—
Ronald Wallace summarizing John Calvin’s program of cultural transformation:
“His program could be described as one of social sanctification rather than of social reconstruction. A transformation first had to be brought about in the personal lives of Geneva’s citizens. This was to be achieved chiefly by two means: through social discipline, and through the sacramental power of the Word of God.”
—
On this podcast, I discussed the past, present, and future of Christendom:
—
Any Christian who wants to see the Christian faith shape his culture today will either embrace the label CN or have it applied to him by others. I’m not thrilled with the label, but I accept for purposes of discussion.
A key question at the moment, central to discussions of Christian nationalism and many other issues:
Can American culture and politics be fixed when American churches are still in disarray and mired in immaturity? Will God give us a faithful Christian prince when we do not have very many faithful Christian pastors? Can cultural/political renewal precede ecclesiastical reformation?
Church and state both need fixing, but how do these two renewal projects relate?
For example: Can we expect statesmen to be tough on crime when pastors don’t discipline their congregations according to Matthew 18? Can we expect beautiful art, architecture, and music in the wider culture when our churches sing trash and are full of kitsch? Should we expect magistrates to shape public policy according to God’s law when most Christians are so poorly catechized, they cannot name the 10 commandments? Can Americans be united as a people when our churches are deeply divided? Can American culture recover masculine and feminine virtue, the proper ordering of the household, and the blessings of children, if our churches do not preach and embody these truths? And so on.
Godly statesmen don’t grow on trees. Christian princes don’t fall from the sky – anymore than Bachs and Rembrandts. Where will the Christian prince come from if our churches are languishing and compromised, if they teach nothing more than a privatized “personal relationship with Jesus” version of the gospel?
—
Christian Reconstruction/Theonomy kept the flame alive for a distinctive Christian politics a generation ago.
Had there been no Christian Recon/Theonomic movement in the 1980s, there would likely be no Christian Nationalist movement in the 2020s.
The Recons were the most viable alternative to R2K and dispensationalism in their era just like CN is today.
—
Racialist confuse the curse of Babel with God’s creational design. Racism (in the sense of racial malice) is contrary to biblical and natural law. It subverts the truth that we all descended from one man and we are all being united in the New Man.
—
I’m starting to think the subdivisions on the right are more about character and virtue than anything else. Or to put it another way, the theological and philosophical differences amongst Christian nationalists pale in comparison to the differences in their spiritual maturity. Perusing X will provide plenty of evidence.
—
Progressives claim there is something uniquely evil about Western civilization. Not only is this hirotically untrue (e.g., slavery has been practices by every people group historically), it’s the exact opposite of the truth.
Anti-Semites argue there is something uniquely evil about the Jews. Right-wing anti-Semites on X: “The Holocaust didn’t happen. But it should have.”
—
From 10/29/24:
Yes — and aren’t white progressives the main cause of moral insanity in America?
If you leave the word “white” off the original post, it loses absolutely none of its force or meaning or truth. The reality is that whites are pretty evenly represented on both sides of the culture war. The lone bulwark against moral insanity is evangelicals. Period. Bringing race in does not really add anything to that fact. It’s like saying whites were the lone bulwark defending the Confederacy in the WBTS – well, sure, but it was mostly whites on the other side invading the Confederacy too.
Suppose we take voting habits as a proxy for the culture war. We could look at other demographics besides race. Men are the last bulwark against moral insanity, because they vote more conservative than women. Married people are the last bulwark against moral insanity because they vote more conservative than unmarrieds. Boomers are the last bulwark against moral insanity because they vote more conservative than the younger generations. And so on. Any of those categories is actually more interesting than race.
I just don’t think the category of race does any heavy lifting when it comes to the lone bulwark argument. If white evangelicals are trying to save the country from white progressives, which is basically what’s happening, the race part of the equation cancels out.
To put it another way, the culture war is a spiritual war, not a race war, as such.
ADDENDUM: Yes, that would be the best way to make the racial “lone bulwark” argument in the original post.
A lot of it comes down to how you define the term “evangelical.” If you take a more narrow, theological meaning of the term, which I would like to do, I think my point stands. If you take a broader, less theological definition of the term, you do have more minority evangelicals (who are obviously on the other side of many culture war issues). But that net will also catch quite a few white evangelicals who are going to be on the other side of this divide, such as Moore and French, which weakens the point of the original post. There are quite a few whites on the “Evangelicals for Harris” bandwagon, after all.
Framing matters, and I it’s more accurate to think of the culture war as a proxy for the spiritual war rather than a proxy for a race war.
Faithful Christians are the key. We are salt. We are light. We are the bulwark.
—
A few more old posts on this:
From 10/30/24:
You should vote Republican rather than Democrat. But voting Republican is not a sufficient bulwark against the onslaught of moral insanity. The Republican Party is not as morally insane as the Democrat Party, but it’s not exactly sane either. Republicans are responsible for quite a bit of the moral insanity we see all around us. Republican victories at this point are a way of buying us time, not fixing the problem.
Short version: The Republican Party is not the lone bulwark against our culture’s moral insanity. Faithful Christian’s are the only possible bulwark.
From 11/12/24:
The Republican Party is not the lone bulwark against moral insanity in America. The red wave on November 5 does not mean we have returned to moral sanity.
Do not confuse an electoral victory of the Republican Party with a culture war victory by Christians. They are not the same. While Christians still reliably support Republicans for obvious reasons, we are not exactly a highly valued part of the new coalition and we do not have as much leverage with DJT as we did even 8 years ago.
I’m thrilled DJT won, especially given the alternative. His friendliness to Christians is wonderful. And I’d rather fight him on the abortion and marriage issues than the Democrats. But I’m not so thrilled that on the way to victory, he got Vance to compromise on the abortion issue and will not even touch Obergefell.
I do not blame DJT for pivoting away from abortion; he did it because opposing abortion is a losing cause in most places, even most very red parts of the country. DJT didn’t cause that shift, though he adjusted to it rather than pushing back against it. It’s up the church to push back. The same goes for the marriage issue. It’s the church’s job to disciple America (including our civil rulers) on this issue. If the salt loses its saltiness, and all that.
DJT’s win does not mean that Christian conservatism has won. It means that Christless conservatism has a lot of appeal right now. DJT is not a Christian President (much less a Christian prince of some sort); he’s a distinctively post-Christian President. DJT’s win does not mean we have reverted from negative world back to a positive world environment for Christian faith, though it does mean we will have a softer, toned down version of negative world compared to what we’d get with a Democrat victory. The post-Christian era we are now in is a really another pre-Christian era, though there is no way to say how long it will take for Christian cultural influence to once again be pervasive. I’m hopeful we can make great progress in the next 2-4 years.
The Trump presidency does not mean all is well. It does not mean we can get comfortable and complacent. It *does* mean that we can be hopeful for more success as we fight for biblical and moral causes in our culture. It *does* mean some of our concerns will likely be addressed head on in a good way. But last week’s election was only one small battle in a long, long war. Keep fighting.
—
Are Hispanics descendants of Europeans? Are Hispanics white?
Up until 1980, US Census data treated Hispanics as white. Is treating them as non-white is accepting left-coded Census Bureau framing?
—
When Paul generalizes about the Gentiles in Romans 1 and Ephesians 4, what color skin do those people have ? What race are they?
—
On racial identity politics: If you want to win, you’ll do it my way – and Trump’s way.
Any form of racial identity politics is problematic. I think that as a Christian and as an American. It’s simply impossible for American Christian’s to consistently promote *white* Christian nationalism because as a matter of fact we have other races here, and have from the beginning. Even deporting all the illegals will not make America monoracial. Comparing America to, say, Japan is useless because the histories are completely different. I’ve pointed out many times that one thing I appreciated about Trump is his attempt to, from the right, build a coalition that included Americans of other races. He was quite successful – at least more than other Republican candidates. He did not promote a white identity politics. It’s odd to me that a burgeoning political movement that is concerned with winning – which is what I take CN to be – would not run that proven playbook, but would instead revert to a kind of racialism that makes coalition building incredibly difficult.
Naming names is absurd and useless when so many players are anons or court anons. I can easily name names – and some people ever responding to my tweet basically proved my point. But there is no accountability with anons there’s little point in taking the time to do so. It’s there for anyone who wants to see it.
—
From 1/11/25:
A secular (or non-Christian) nation must be basically monoracial because it has no way to create peace between different racial groups. All it can ever envision is racial war and conflict between different groups. Nations that have nothing more than flesh (cf. the Pauline sense of the term) will always produce the works of the flesh. They cannot do otherwise. A nationalism of the flesh has no real options. You cannot make non-Christians of different races get along; non-Christians even of the same race struggle to get along. Racial identity politics is a cope in a multiracial non-Christian nation.
Christian nations have the work of the Spirit in their midst so they have options. Christian nations can learn from the ethnic and racial peace the gospel created in the communities of the early church (eg, Ephesians 2, Acts 13, etc.). Christian nations have a way forward. Christian nations produce a coherent culture into which Christians of other ethnicities and races can be assimilated. This does not mean Christian nations become borderless; it does mean they can be wisely hospitable in ways that non-Christian nations cannot.
America has never been as thoroughly Christian as we should have been but the intensity of our present crisis is largely due widespread apostasy into secularism.
—
In brief, a nation is a people who share a language, borders, culture, and government.
—
From 4/10/25:
It is not possible to take 16th century Reformational political theory and drop it into an American context unaltered anymore than it is possible to take the law of Moses and drop it into an American context unaltered. We cannot do with the Reformers what theonomists want to do with Moses because when it comes to politics, context matters and prudence is always necessary.
Of course, biblical law should be an authoritative source of political wisdom and principles in every society. And we can certainly learn from and implement certain features from Reformational political theology – their political work is not irrelevant. But the American context is different — it’s different from ancient Israel and its different from 16th century Geneva. American problems call for uniquely American solutions. We have to deal with America as she actually exists in 2025. We have to play the hand we’re dealt.
To give a couple examples: The American founders developed a system of limited government, checks and balances, federalism, individual rights grounded in nature and nature’s God, etc. We cannot simultaneously say, “the constitution is dead” AND honor our political forefathers. This is one reason why I have questioned the notion of a “Christian prince” in an American context — a “Christian prince” seems fitting in a European context, but not America. A Christian President, a Christian Commander-in-Chief — those would be fully American. But not a Christian prince. There’s no need for Americans to hanker after European titles that we left behind a long time ago. We should work within the system our founding fathers gave us (and of course that system has provisions for change and adaptation). And yes, I’ve read Caldwell — I know we have gone through several constitutional revolutions, and the civil rights regime has created a new de facto order. But even rolling back what needs to be rolled back from the civil rights era has to be done in a way that works with and within our existing institutions.
Another example: White Christian Nationalists will complain that no one accuses Japan of racism for wanting to be Japanese, so why is it wrong for whites to want to have a country of their own? Why is ethnonationalism ok in some countries but not others? But this misses the point, and the problem. American and Japanese history are entirely different. Racial identity politics will always function differently in America than anywhere else. America was multiracial from the days of the earliest settlers. We had black slaves here. We had Amerindians. America has to deal with the race issue differently from other nations because we have a different history. Advocating ethnonationalism here is a very different thing because our national story is very different. And before jumping to conclusions about what I am saying and not saying, I fully believe that we need to enforce our borders and deport illegals, we need to stop anti-white racialism, we need to continue dismantling DEI, we need to bring critical manufacturing back home, etc. But none of those things require us to frame the issues in terms of race. And none of those things will make America monoracial. They are all common sense proposals that serve the good of the nation. Period. Racializing everything is not the way forward. Trump won twice (or thrice), and did so without racialization. In fact, he sought to build a coalition that included blacks and Hispanics, and had more success than any other recent politician — and that’s becausen he knows coalitions are required in any movement if it’s going to be successful. The left *wanted* him to do racial identity politics, but he refused. Trump’s genius is that he’s shown a way forward, a way the right can win. I don’t see why some people want to mess it up by making it all about race. “White Christian Nationalism” is to “Christian Nationalism” what “Make White America Great Again” is to MAGA. Conservative blacks often point out that the best way to deal with race in America is to just stop talking about it. And I tend to agree: if we focus on building a *Christian* nation here (as opposed to, say, a *white* nation), the race issue will take care of itself.
—
The Trump administration is proving racial identity politics is not necessary to building a successful political coalition. Dismantling DEI does not require some kind of white identity politics or white supremacy doctrine.
—
Citizenship is an important but distinct issue. The fact of the presence of blacks and Indians here gives American history a different shape than elsewhere. There’s no getting around that. American history is inescapably multiracial. We cannot be compared to monoracial nations because the American experience is different.
ADDENDUM: Multiple races were here in America from the beginning and figuring out how to navigate that is part of the American experience. Many other nations have no analogous experience.
Christian nations are the goal, whether monoracial or not. But it’s not likely that America will restrict citizenship to committed Protestants any time soon, if ever. It’s certainly not a platform a presidential candidate will be running on anytime soon.
—
Was the Roman Empire an ethnostate? Were the early churches monoethnic?
Remember, race and ethnicity/nationality are not the same.
It’s not necessarily wrong for a state to be monoethnic. But I’m not convinced being monoracial reduces conflict. American Indians were the same race and yet fought constantly. Africa has been a largely monoracial continent but has had constant conflict for generations upon generations. Most wars fought by whites have been against other whites. Etc.
—
“Christianity is anti-Semitic.”
Jesus hates his own people? Paul hates his fellow Jews? Jesus has no natural affections for his own flesh and blood? is Jesus not allowed to have natural affections?
—
Old X posts from the racial identity politics discussion:
In John 8, Jesus tells the Pharisees — Jewish leaders — that they are the offpsring of the devil. They claim to have Abraham as their father, but they actually belong to satan’s family.
Jesus would say the same thing to he said to the Pharisees to white people, black people, Americans, Chinese, etc., who do not believe in him. All unbelievers, no matter their race or ethnicity, belong to their father the devil. The level of foolishness on display here is hard to fathom. There are Jews who belong to Jesus and Jews who belong to Satan, just like every other race and ethnicity. I could just as easily cite Paul’s words to the Gentiles in Ephesians 4:17ff to argue he was anti-Gentile (including anti-white). Again, it’s hard to fathom the level of spiritual blindness and stupidity involved in the kind of claims you’re making. I suggest you find a good church and sit under a godly pastor….
No, you called Jesus an anti-Semite based on his words in John 8. That’s wrong and stupid. Using that same approach, Paul is anti-Gentile based on his words in Romans 1:18ff, Ephesians 4:17ff, etc. The whole human is condemned and belongs to Satan apart from grace; and people from every nation and ethnicity, Jew and Gentile, are invited into the kingdom of Christ through faith. The antithesis is not racial or ethnic. The ultimate divide in the human race comes down to faith – those who have faith in Jesus belong to him, those who do not are of their father the devil. Jews are welcomed to put their faith in Christ just like everyone else. Christians are not anti-Semitic, we are anti-sin and anti-unbelief.
The word “Semite” refers to a race of people or to an ethnicity. Jesus is not opposed to any race as such. He died for people of all ethnicities and invites them into his kingdom by faith. Jesus is anti-false religion. He is anti-idolatry. He is opposed to Islam, Mormonism, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. He is also opposed to those who cloak false religion under the guise of Christianity, like “progressive Christians,” “self-righteous Christians,” etc. He is opposed to hypocrisy, pride, and all other manifestation of sin. He is opposed to anything that violates his Word, the Scriptures. Jesus is willing to forgive any sin, and he is willing to forgive any sinner, provided we turn to him in faith and repentance. Claims that Jesus was anti-Semitic obscure these basic truths and produce confusion about the gospel. John 8 is not about anti-Semitism. If that was the case, then no Jewish person could be saved because no Jewish person can change his Semitic ancestry. In John 8, Jesus is opposing the arrogant self-righteousness and presumption that characterized many Jews of that time, particularly the Pharisees. But there is no question many Jews (including a few Pharisees) of that time did trust Jesus and follow him, just as there are Jewish (Semitic) disciples of Jesus today. The issue is never race; it is always faith….
Besides tweeting about, what’s the practical “cash value” of your anti-Semitism? How does it change the way you live? Or vote? Or evangelize? How exactly are you using your anti-Semitic convictions to advance Christianity in practical ways?….
As to who my tweet is about, I think any form of racial identity politics is problematic. I think that as a Christian and as an American. It’s simply impossible for American Christians to consistently promote *white* Christian nationalism because as a matter of fact we have other races here, and have from the beginning. Even deporting all the illegals will not make America monoracial. Comparing America to, say, Japan is useless because the histories are completely different. I’ve pointed out many times that one thing I appreciated about Trump is his attempt to, from the right, build a coalition that included Americans of other races. He was quite successful – at least more than other Republican candidates. He did not promote a white identity politics. It’s odd to me that a burgeoning political movement that is concerned with winning – which is what I take CN to be – would not run that proven playbook, but would instead revert to a kind of racialism that makes coalition building incredibly difficult.
Naming names is absurd and useless when so many players are anons or court anons. I can easily name names – and some people ever responding to my tweet basically proved my point. But there is no accountability with anons there’s little point in taking the time to do so. It’s there for anyone who wants to see it….
Framing matters in political movements. And how we frame these issues will go a long way towards determining how much success we will have. White Christian nationalists want to frame the basic issue in terms of race. It is very important to note that this is not what Trump did in winning the White House 2 (or 3) times.
Even deporting all the illegals will not make America monoracial. Comparing America to, say, Japan is useless because the histories are completely different. I’ve pointed out many times that one thing I appreciated about Trump is his attempt to, from the right, build a coalition that included Americans of other races. He was quite successful – at least more than other Republican candidates. He did not promote a white identity politics. It’s odd to me that a burgeoning political movement that is concerned with winning – which is what I take CN to be – would not run that proven playbook, but would instead revert to a kind of racialism that makes coalition building incredibly difficult.
—
Doug makes some great points here, in a way that only he can.
Some young American men today (quite a few them as anons on this app) feel more affinity for Hitler and Nazi Germany than for their own American ancestors who crushed Nazism. And yet these men also want to promote some kind of American Christian nationalism. That makes no sense.
Two of America’s greatest accomplishments came in the 20th century: we defeated the Nazis in WW2 and we defeated the Soviets in the Cold War. No, America is not and never has been perfect, but Americans (especially American men!) should be incredibly proud of these achievements by our people.
Why did that WBS video end with images of the ‘36 Berlin Olympics instead of D-Day footage? Hmmmm….
My counsel to young American Christian men tempted by Side B Nazism: Don’t let the very real problems that emerged with the post-war consensus keep you from glorying in what the men of our nation accomplished. American men were the heroes of the 20th century. Period. We are not half the men they were, and renarrating WW2 in a way that minimizes Hitler’s evil also minimizes what American men accomplished. It’s bad in both directions.
—
Yes, the postwar consensus had little to do with the war itself and didn’t solidify until quite some time after the war, when the globalists and multiculturalists figured out how to turn Nazism into a political weapon. Those who want to blame what we see around us today on WW2 are like those who want to blame the end of Western civilization on the Reformation.
—
What Wolfe and others get right is that whites are under attack.
What Mattson gets right is that the gospel’s interracial redemption has political consequwnces.
—
“Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Mao Zedong all shared at least one thing in common: they hated their fathers.
Remarkably, all 3 seemed to have loved their mothers, and Hitler and Mao saw themselves in alliance with their mother against their father.”
— Rob Henderson
—
“Delightful to everyone is his native soil, and it is also delightful to dwell among one’s own people.”
–John Calvin
—
R. L. Dabney on ordo amoris, patriotism, nationalism, etc. (I don’t agree with everything he says here, but there are also some important insights, some of which I have highlighted):
“The duties of patriotism are not prominently urged in sacred Scripture. This we account for, not by supposing, with a certain sickly school of moralists, that this sentiment is selfish, narrow or inconsistent with the broadest philanthropy; but by the facts, that the obligations of the citizen are not directly religious, and that they are so natural as to require little inculcation. The Hebrew Scriptures do indeed say enough, as in the text, to justify an intense love of native land and its institutions. Civil government is God’s ordinance, and if it be just, one of his greatest temporal blessings. The diversity of tongues, characters, races and interests among mankind forbids their union in one universal commonwealth. The aggregation of men into separate nations is therefore necessary; and the authority of the governments instituted over them, to maintain internal order and external defence against aggression, is of divine appointment. Hence, to sustain our government with heart and hand is not only made by God our privilege, but our duty. Our best way to advance the well-being of the [human] race is to advance that of the portion of our [human] race associated with us in the same society. He who extends his philanthropy so broadly as to refuse a special attachment to the interests of his own people, will probably make it so thin as to be of no account to any people.
I therefore believe that there is nothing opposed to an enlightened Christianity in a warm patriotism for our particular country. This feeling is made up of several elements: a legitimate regard for our own welfare and worldly estate, interest in that of our families, and a wider benevolence towards our fellow citizens; together with an honest pride in the glories of our history, and in the justice of our institutions, with the attachments of local affection to the very scenery and soil of our native land. . . .
It is even more appropriate to us than it was to the Greek to sing: “Glorious his fate, and envied is his lot, Who for his country fights, and for it dies;” for we contend, not only for the lawful interests of home and country, but for the more precious and sacred cause of God and of souls. I am not one of those who hold that these sentiments are the birth only of pagan ferocity, or unholy pride. The principles of personal honor and the love of glory have been perverted among us into a code of wickedness and bloody retaliation, for which we now doubtless suffer the chastisement of an offended God. From this abuse the professors of a spurious and debased puritanism have taken occasion to decry all such sentiments until they seem to be vanished from among them; and the vileness of public morals, which is the consequence of this extreme, has become as loathsome as the other was violent. But there is a true glory and a true honor, that which cometh from God and not from man: the glory of duty done, of obstacles overcome, of fears resisted, and of generous sacrifices made to a worthy cause, the honor of an integrity of principle stronger than the sense of pain or the fear of death. He deserves most of this honor who from pure motives braves the direst evils and pays the costliest sacrifice for the noblest object. . . .
Such applause [for patriotism], when nobly won, is valuable; it is ennobling. It is an inheritance of honor to the children who emulate the virtues that won it. Is there one who “hath the stomach and mettle of a man” that would not rather leave his sons freemen, enriched only with this heritage, won for them by a father’s blood, than wealthy slaves? And is there a true woman who would not elect, heart-rending as it might be to make the election, to be the widow of such a Christian hero than to live in the embraces of a dishonored and abject man, the serf of despots?”
—
In Christendom, both tables of the law are enforced. That’s to say every sin is a crime, but all 10 commandments have civil applications. In Christendom, the Christian faith is not privatized, but shapes the public life, character, and culture of a people.
—
Right now, we live in an atheistic theocracy. This is the fruit of secualar liberalism.
—
The magistrate cannot just enforce the second table of the law because the second table hangs on the first table.
Right now, secularism’s first table is being enforced. Secularism has its blasphemy laws, holy days, sexual crimes, etc.
—
The “great replacement” is no doubt real.
But whose fault is it whites are being displaced?
Whose fault is it that whites don’t reproduce?
Who foisted our terrible policies on us?
—
Unrestricted immigration hurts non white Americans too.
Denial of meritocracy hurts everyone.
If you want to say that races are extended families, then you might as well say the human race is one big family. Yes, white peoples are genetically related. But ALL humans are genetically related.
—
There is no such thing as “Christian racism.” It’s a contradiction in terms. By contrast, there is such a thing as Christian nationalism.
—
There are definitely strategies of cultural and political resistance available to Christians that are not racist.
—
Many of the things we should want are actually good for all Americans. The borderless south doesn’t just hurt whites, it hurts blacks. Whites might be the target of the policy, but arguably, blacks are damaged more.
Same with DEI vs meritocracy. Diversity hires, affirmative action, etc., just reinforce the soft bigotry of low expectations. A qualified meritocracy is good for all Americans, not just whites, because it raises the bar and brings out everyone’s best.
All Americans would be served well by election integrity, including voter ID. Trustworthy elections are a key to building social trust.
Everyone benefits from competent policing. Defunding police actually hurts minorities even more than whites.
Critical race theory and wealth redistribution programs just stir racial hate and class warfare, which is bad for all Americans. If we are going to have a coherent country, we have to find ways to get along and so policies that stoke division (at least unnecessary division) are bad for everyone.
The rule of law, policies that encourage family formation and discourage divorce, educational freedom, etc., are objectively good for all Americans, not just white Americans.
And on and on it could go.
—
Calvin is not Aristotelian on the issue of race. He writes, “For consanguinity and the same original [Adam] ought to have been a bond of mutual consent among them; but it is religion which doth most of all join men together, or cause them to fly one another’s company.” To unpack what Calvin is saying here, family ties do bind us together, but religion creates an even stronger bond. In Christian terms, we might say, “water is thicker than blood,” as it has often been put. The waters of baptism create an even thicker bond than the blood of kinship.
Yes, Calvin loved his native land of France. But he loved the gospel and church more, which is why he was living to leave. He had to “pine” for his homeland because he left it as a religious refugee. As much as he loved France, he loved Christ and the Bible and his fellow Protestants more. He chose to be a displaced believer in Geneva rather than a Roman Catholic in his homeland.
—
What Calvin says about religious bonds being stronger than other bonds is actually just a working out of his own experience: he fled his native France and ended up a refugee in Geneva for religious reasons. If familial (or national) bonds were stronger than religious bonds, he should have stayed in the Roman church and been a good Frenchman. But he subordinated national and familial loyalties to his religious convictions.
—
From an X discussion of Aristotle and race:
What would Aristotle have said if he had lived to see medieval Europe (aka Christendom), where precisely those groups that he observed being antagonistic to one another came together to build a beautiful Christian civilization?
Aristotle could not even begin to imagine what the gospel would accomplish because he did not have the gospel.
Think of Belloc’s statement about medieval Christendom, “Europe IS the faith”
Also, there is some confusion about how the category of “nature” functions in these discussions.
What Aristotle was observing about the hostility of various ethnicities and their inability to get along was not “nature” per se. What he was actually observing is what we Christians call “sin” — which is always contrary to our created nature.
While it is true in an unfallen world, as humanity spread out to fill the earth, various genetic and cultural ethnicities would form, these groupings would have been providential, not natural, in that they are always contingent, not fixed.
Ethnicities are not fixed in nature the way, say, male and female are.
Ethnicities are contingent – they come and go in God’s providence. Not too long ago, there as no such thing as an American. Once there were Hittites — but no more. Etc.
Many ancient ethnicities no longer exist, many new ethnicities have come into existence, and there is no reason to think the ethnicities we have today will still be the ones we have 5000 years from now.
In an unfallen world, an ethnicity might have an “in group” preference but would still love the “out group” – and some degree of mixing would not be forbidden or even imprudent.
What Aristotle viewed as the natural condition of divided humanity was actually fallen humanity, not God’s creational design as such.
But Aristotle had no conception of the fall or redemption, so no way to distinguish fallen from unfallen (or redeemed) humanity.
What’s remarkable is that the leaven of the gospel took those warring factions Aristotle is talking about and formed them into a new people, with a cohesive and peaceful civilization – a civilization that produced the most beautiful music, the grandest architecture, and the highest philosophy the world had ever known.
Think of Hillaire Belloc’s famous quip “Europe is the faith.” Europe (when it was Christian) was the fruit of grace transforming nature.
I agree with Joradn that Western Civilization was compromised in various ways — see his series of articles on Western Civilization.
I think people fear Western Civ ending because what comes next might be far worse. A better pathway forward would be to build on what Western Civilization did well and purge it remaining pagan influences.
The problem is that with such widespread apostasy today, neo-paganism has almost completely destroyed what was good about our Western heritage.
Building a Christian civilization out of complete rubble is not easy.
I have been critical of identity politics, in particular, gender identity politics (feminism) and racial identity politics (BLM white nationalism, etc.). Identity politics makes the chosen aspect of identity (usually race or sex) more important than what a person believes or does. It takes faith and character out of politics and emphasizes other aspects of who we are — but those aspects actually have no political content by themselves. Do we really want black Christians to subordinate their Christian faith to some supposed “black identity”? No, of course not. And note that if a black Christian breaks rank and votes conservative, suddenly his black skin doesn’t matter — he castigated as “not really black.” But this proves that even for those who tout a kind of racial identity politics, ideology still trumps race.
But there is a very real sense in which all politics is identity politics.
All politics is identity politics and every one of us is made up of several identities. It’s a question of how these different identities will be arranged and related.
—
From a 10/31/24 discussion on X:
I like that you started your list of quotations with Augustin!
I see very little that is actually racist in any of these quotations. What Augustin says about Ethiopians might not be “nice” but he’s referring to an ethnicity (and culture) there, not a race (unless Ethiopian means something different here and I am misunderstanding).
Augustin says faith makes the many ethnicities one, which is entirely correct and contrary to what a racist would say. It’s not as if the only two choices are racism and globalism. Augustin is threading the needle properly.
Cyprian states an obvious fact – we enjoy seeing our own features reproduced in our children. “He has his dad’s eyes and his mom’s smile.” That’s not racist. It’s just how genetics and human nature work. I’m sure he would acknowledge that black parents enjoy the same thing as white parents in this regard.
Looks to me like Origen is commenting on the cultures of various ethnicities. Same with Hus. I don’t think there’s anything racist about nations having citizenship requirements for holding office (or voting). That’s just what it means to have a proper nation.
Luther is stating a genealogical fact, and if anything, is opposing any kind of racism by saying the Shemites have no ground for boasting (despite temporary covenantal privileges for some descendants of Shem).
None of these quotations say anything like, “whites are superior to other races” or “white peoples should rule all people with other skin colors” or anything like that. Yes, there are exceptions, but in my experience the church historically had been remarkably unracist – especially given how racist the pagan, non-Christian world was. The harmonization of different ethnicities in the early church was one of its most shocking and counter-cultural features. It’s almost like the Christians really believed passages like Ephesians 2 and Galatians 3. I reject the notion that most Christians were racist for most of history. That’s a slander.
Remember than ethnicity is not the same as race. A Polish joke does not make fun of all whites; in fact it’s probably told by a white person, though one of a different ethnicity. Comments made about the dietary habits of Haitians are not racial in nature, they are ethnic. Claiming some cultures are better than others is not racist, especially when we acknowledge that superior cultures are so generally because of the influence of the gospel. I am partly of Scotch-Irish descent; my people had no great culture to boast of until the gospel arrived and rock-worshipping pagans were converted into a civilized Christian people.
Careful study of Columbus, the Pilgrims, etc., generally shows that (a) they did not operate with a modern racial consciousness at all, and (b), they did not dehumanize other people groups even if they detested their wicked practices. The Spaniards intermarried with the Aztecs and other Amerindians, producing Hispanics. The French intermarried with Amerindians. The early European settlers in New England intermarried with the Amerindians they encountered, adopted their children, and had rather cordial relations with them overall for much of the time. They did not think of them as a different race in the modern sense. In their view, varying skin colors had more to do with latitude than race-based genetics. They really could not have been racists in the modern sense.
The closest the Bible comes to racial generalization is Romans 1 and Ephesians 4 about the Gentiles.
—
A book like Ronald Wallace’s Calvin, Geneva, and the Reformation does a good job showing how Calvin pursued ecclesiastical and civil reform at the same time, but I’d argue from the history that he saw the church as the key to social and cultural transformation.
—
Another X discussion:
It’s an ideal to strive towards.
Pursue the good on every front. But we still have to prioritize because you can’t do everything at once all the time.
Peter is addressing a people with no direct access to political power. But consider Paul, whose whole goal in the book of Acts is to preach before Caesar. I think apostles knew Christendom was coming, they just didn’t know how long it would take.
—
A secular (or non-Christian) nation must be basically monoracial because it has no way to create peace between different racial groups. All it can ever envision is racial war and conflict between different groups. Nations that have nothing more than flesh (cf. the Pauline sense of the term) will always produce the works of the flesh. They cannot do otherwise. A nationalism of the flesh has no real options. You cannot make non-Christians of different races get along; non-Christians even of the same race struggle to get along. Racial identity politics is a cope in a multiracial non-Christian nation.
Christian nations have the work of the Spirit in their midst so they have options. Christian nations can learn from the ethnic and racial peace the gospel created in the communities of the early church (eg, Ephesians 2, Acts 13, etc.). Christian nations have a way forward. Christian nations produce a coherent culture into which Christians of other ethnicities and races can be assimilated. This does not mean Christian nations become borderless; it does mean they can be wisely hospitable in ways that non-Christian nations cannot.
America has never been as thoroughly Christian as we should have been but the intensity of our present crisis is largely due widespread apostasy into secularism.
—
From January 10, 2025 X discussion:
You cannot defeat racial identity politics with more racial identity politics. All racial identity politics can do is produce the nihilism of Nietzsche’s will to power. It will devolve into the all the worst features of democracy that our founding fathers warned us about, including the tyranny of mob rule. Racial identity politics is the politics of anger and resentment; it cannot produce the righteousness of God.
Opposition to abortion does not flow merely out of a gender identity (eg, a conservative version of feminism for women), but out of the injustice of destroying life in the womb. I’m opposed to treating women as their own identity group, with their own political interests, whether those interests are framed in a progressive or conservative way. I’m in favor of justice, which is ultimately good for everyone.
When George Washington and the founders talked about whites and citizenship in America, “white” was a marker for much more than just race or skin color – it was freighted heavily with European (especially British) Christian culture. “White” was proxy for membership in Western civilization/Christendom. (Given their limited knowledge of genetics, it should be noted that the founders did not at all think of race in the same way we do today. See Jeff Fynn-Paul.)
But today, “whiteness” no longer carries those cultural and religious dimensions. It is no longer a proxy term for Western Christendom. Whites abandoned that heritage a long time ago and “white” is now treated as a biological/genetic term and nothing more. Joe Biden may be white but he is not part of “my people” except in the barest sense of shared American citizenship. There isn’t really a shared worldview, and barely anything of a shared culture. I cannot rebuild Christendom the likes of Joe Biden, even though we share skin color.
If we want to win the battle we are in culturally and politically, we have to deal with America as she exists today, not as she existed 250 years ago. This calls for wisdom, not just retrieval. We need winning strategies and tactics for right now. Racial identity politics from the right is a losing cause. The last election suggests it might be a losing cause for the left too. (The left will keep losing until they figure this out.) There’s nothing aspirational about racial identity politics, and votes, funding, etc. follow aspirational and inspirational visions. Racial identity politics, from left or right, stirs up anger and a victim mentality; it does not solve our nations problems and will not “make America great again.” From a Christian perspective, there are many problems with Trump, but he is savvy enough to know that racial identity politics is an electoral dead end. It might play well in social media bubbles, but it’s a loser in the “real” world.
This is where American history gets quite messy. Who is the common patriarch of America – the one from who Americans (and not non-Americans) descend?
American identity from early on grew out of a conglomeration of many different ethnicities and religiosities. We had English, Scotch-Irish (who often despised the Irish), Dutch, French, German, eventually Hispanic, Amerindians (intermarriage was common), etc. We have never been a purebred nation by European standards. Plus, you have to mix in slaves from Africa who were here early on.
Now, I think the Christian faith formed European Christendom and that was the starting point for American identity. It was always about assimilating into a Reformational Protestant identity – though be that included a variety of Protestant denominations actions. Then you had more and more Roman Catholics come in (and their immigration status was questioned for a long time because of questions about their ability to properly assimilate). We have been good at integrating different people into our nationhood in amazing ways. We could celebrate both St Patrick’s Day (to help Irish assimilation) and Columbus Day (to help Italian assimilation). Etc.
But at some point (the history here is well documented) we hit a breaking point. The life boat began to sink. We lost our cultural identity by turning from the Christian faith at the very same time many came in who had no interest or ability in assimilating. That’s part of what has led to the crisis.
The other piece of it is Democrats seeking to import voters that would give them a permanent majority.
So while I agree that common descent (eg, ethinic background and biological race) has some role to play in American identity, it is not exactly the same as most other nations, and never can be. There are some things about America that are pretty unique – and that have resulted in unique blessings in the past but unique challenges today.
Whatever our future holds, I’d say our national identity crisis is a faith crisis more than anything. Only the Christian faith provides hope for sufficient assimilation…..
What exactly are you advocating? A race war? What does that look like?
A problem: many of those who promote DEI, CRT, etc., and are anti-white (as documented in the book The Unprotected Class) are themselves white. Whatever cultural conflict we are in, it does not fall simply along racial lines. It suggests that perhaps race is a proxy for something else.
Are you confident of winning a war when half (or more) of “your team” is going to play for the other side?
And what are the best tactics to use in a race war like the one you’re advocating for? The Republican Party is not going to be instrumentalized on the side of the whites in a race war. Assume MAGA is relatively successful over the next 4 years. Vance is the heir apparent to the MAGA throne. Will he go to war with his own wife? Will he embrace anything like this kind of racial identity politics? Yes, I heard his convention speech….but he’s not going to use racial categories as you are advocating. If anything his vision is still animated by a desire to bring non-whites into a “heritage America” frame.
It’s hard for me to see any wisdom in this highly racialized framing like you’re advocating. How do you think that will play out in electoral politics, at a national or even state level? Trump just won the popular vote pushing for, among other things, deporting illegals (according to the law) and reasserting our southern border. But he certainly never framed his candidacy in terms of a race war. He will never mention whiteness. Trump just showed there is a pathway to victory that emphasizes the rule of law, economic nationalism (which would help all Americans, not just whites, if it helps at all), a much more restrained foreign policy (though you probably don’t like his view of modern Israel), etc. Trump did not try to build a white-only party; he tried to build a wide ranging coalition of people who want to see our country succeed. He made explicit appeals to other races. Why not build off that instead of attacking, presumably, Jews, blacks, Hispanics,etc., like you’re advocating?
Even the book The Unprotected Class which deals with anti-white bias, does not go the route of a race war or highly segregated racial identity politics. He says whites should try to find allies in other groups (especially Hispanics), use lawfare to protect themselves from discrimination, etc. That’s a much wiser pathway to destroying the DEI/CRT/etc. regime than trying to do the “white consciousness” thing. I want to win – and that means not advocating positions and strategies that are sure to lose….
It doesn’t matter where they are from. We are planning to deport people on the basis of their legal status, not skin color. If Swedes and Germans are here illegally they will be subject to deportation too. And, even if every last illegal is deported. America will still be very multiracial – that’s not changing….
Plenty of white Gentiles push DEI, CRT, etc.
—
I agree with @CapstoneReport that stoking further racial division is likely to play right the hands of the elites that need to be defeated. It’s a distraction and a path to losing. They’d love for you to promote “whiteness” because it will make you irrelevant. Likewise, reducing everything to a Jewish conspiracy is simply not going to help change things nor provide a pathway to victory. If electoral politics is part of your strategy, you need to think about what can win in the real world, and not just score likes in a social media bubble.
—
Hodge on America’s Christian founding:
“These United States of North America are, and from the beginning were, of law, of right and of actual fact, a Christian nation.”
“This is a Christian country, in the sense that Christianity is an original and essential element of the law of the land.”
—
From 9/25/24:
Some thoughts and questions on the way ethnicity factors into current debates and discussions….
Are white evangelicals the lone bulwark against the dissolution of our culture and country? Sure, but who are white evangelicals trying to save the country from? Largely white progressives. Whites are leaders on both sides of the culture war, so the racial piece cancels out. It’s really just evangelicals vs. progressives. Worldview, not race, is the real issue here.
I see a lot of guys claiming “the Jews” are behind most everything bad happening in the world today. The claim is debatable on a number of levels, but let’s grant it for the moment. My question for those making this claim is, What do you want me to do with that information? How am I supposed to act on it?
Further, what is lost if we identify these people by their worldview rather than ethnicity? Instead of saying, “Jews are destroying everything,” why not say, “progressives are destroying everything”? The latter claim is more comprehensive, more defensible, and less likely to lead to confusion and distraction.
Whatever else we might say about the role Jews have historically played in Western civilization, anti-Semitism has not accomplished anything useful. The Jews are under no special curse since 70 AD. Like Paul and the other apostles, our primary posture towards non-Christian Jews should be one of evangelization. The conversion of the Jews is the only “final solution” there can ever be.
—
Liberalism wants the church to be invisible, and only invisible.
If there’s one thing liberalism can’t stand, it’s a strong visible church.
A strong and faithful visible church is a bulwark against liberalism.
—
From 9/11/24:
How do we interpret what’s happening in America today? We are experiencing a foreign invasion, corrupt and incompetent political and military leadership, the prevalence of unnatural and perverse forms of sexuality, collapsing fertility rates, widespread mental illness, etc.
In Scripture, these things are often identified as the judgment of God upon a people.
If that is so in our case, then the *only* way to stop these things is repentance.
It does not matter what else we do, in terms of political activism.
If God is judging us, it will not stop until and unless we repent.
If progressives are doing this to us, and that’s all it is, then we can fight back in the same way they are fighting against us.
But if God is behind it all – if he is doing this to us because his hand is against us, because he is angry with us – then only repentance can stop it.
“The LORD will send on you curses, confusion, and frustration in all that you undertake to do, until you are destroyed and perish quickly on account of the evil of your deeds, because you have forsaken me… The LORD will strike you with madness and blindness and confusion of mind.” (Deuteronomy 28:20, 28)
The problems we face are not *merely* political, they are spiritual, and so merely political solutions will not be enough.
There is no political solution to the judgement of God.
In the book of Judges, when Israel is judged and oppressed because of their unfaithfulness, they do not get a political solution (in the form of a judge bringing deliverance) until *after* they have cried out to the Lord in repentance.
I do think God is being patient and gracious to us
I also think the fact that there are still many, many faithful Christians in the US mitigates the judgment we are experiencing
You might say faithful Christians in America today are the lone bulwark against a much greater judgment our land would otherwise receive
—
Faithful worshipping churches are the lone bulwark against the principalities and powers.
—
While Christian nationalism can have evangelistic implications, it is not fundamentally about evangelism, and it is a mistake (leading to severe compromise) to subordinate one’s political theology to evangelistic concerns. CN is about government promoting a more just and free society, according to biblical principles, by punishing evil and commending good, per Romans 13.
TPC Pastor's Page 