Some time back I asked on Twitter if people would call themselves Christian nationalists or not. There were a variety of responses from yes to no to everywhere in between. Here is one representative of the in between.
Until there is strong agreement on what it means, I will not embrace a term that is also claimed by groups that I would never support, endorse, or fellowship with.
Here’s another from a yes:
I’m a Christian. I think biblically based public policy is the best recipe for human flourishing.
I absolutely agree that a biblically based public policy is not only the best, but ultimately the only recipe for human flourishing. This got me thinking about how I would describe myself, and what exactly I do believe in this regard.
First the term. We all know it is leftist dog whistle to imply Christians and nationalists are white supremacists without saying it. This also tells us the left fears both Christians and nationalists because they are a threat to their God-less Marxist, globalist agenda. If you’ve never read Karl Marx’s little Communist Manifesto, you may not know that Marx and his progeny have four enemies that must, in his words, be “abolished” if the revolution is to succeed and communism is to lead inexorably to a classless Utopia where all are equal:
- Private property
- The family
- The nation-state
- Religion, i.e., Christianity
Of the four, Christianity is the most dangerous to their diabolical project because from it the other three are derived and sustained.
I will explain below the tentative conclusions I’ve come to about my own political philosophy and what might describe me at this point in time, but first some preliminaries.
The Nation-State
The nation-state is one of the many gifts of Christian Western civilization. I wonder how many Americans know that the idea of a nation with identifiable sovereign borders is a relatively new phenomena in the history of the world. Prior to the seventeenth century, borders were determined by military power, and as power dynamics shifted among peoples, so did borders. This began to change in the seventeenth century as the result of a European peace treaty called the Peace of Westphalia (1648), which ended the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648) and Eighty Years’ War (1568–1648). The basic idea of the Westphalian system is that each state, or nation has an equal right to sovereignty.
So taken for granted by most people, this arrangement is assumed to be the natural order of things—it is not. The reason is because of sinful man’s penchant for building towers of Babel (Gen. 11). Babel teaches us that hubris will always tend to make people consolidate power to unbiblical tyrannical ends unless they are countered with forces that limit their power, something America’s Founders understood better than any thinkers the world has ever known.
Because the nation-state is un-natural, it is fragile, and in our day is uniquely under assault by transnationalist globalist elites who see borders as inhibiting their Babel-like agenda. Put simply, nationalism is an obstacle to the goals of the globalist technocratic elite, the builders of a modern globalist babel. Given this natural sinful tendency to centralize and absolutize power, Christians are obligated to be nationalists, and need to recognize the Satanic threat of globalism.
A nation is more than borders, much more. It is first a local experience because loyalty and commitment comes from the bottom up: first the family, then the locality, town, or city, then the county, the state, and finally the nation. The organic nature of the nation is described well by Stephen Wolfe:
[T]he nation, properly understood, is a particular people with ties of affection that bind them to each other and their place of dwelling; and thus nationalism is the nation acting for its national good, which includes conversation of those ties of affection.
Affection is the operative word. We can’t have a real personal devotion and loyalty to an abstraction like a United Nations or European Union. Affection is only possible with what we know in some measure personally, intimately. The neighbors we see every day, or the parents at school, or people in the grocery store, it is they who we develop a connection with, not people on a screen on the other side of the world. This sense of peoplehood, if you will, is inevitable and necessary in a world full of nations.
The concept of the nation, or specific people groups, is an important biblical concept, the word being used well over 600 times. In fact, when Jesus gave what we’ve come to call the Great Commission to the eleven in Matthew 28, he told them to make disciples of all nations (ethnos in Greek), not all people (anthropos in Greek). In Acts 17 the Apostle Paul lays out the case for the God ordained nature of nations:
26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.
You can’t get more biblically unequivocal than that!
The Kingdom, the Church, and the Nation
Related to the issue of a Christian nation, is the problem of the modern confusion in conflating the Church with the kingdom of God. Until recently I believed the kingdom was the church, and the church the kingdom. This is not true. The kingdom of God or heaven is God’s rule or reign on earth brought by God’s redeemed people, not by church bodies as such. It is also not just saved Christians who advance God’s kingdom on earth, but saved Christians who apply their biblical and Christian worldview to every square inch of life, a la Abraham Kuyper who said, “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!” God’s kingdom is also advanced by non-Christians who embrace Christian values and assumptions about the nature of reality and apply them. Worldviews have consequences, and our job as faithful Christians is to inculcate the Christian worldview into the culture, which is a people’s beliefs externalized and applied. The ultimate goal is people imbibing a Christian worldview instead of the poison of the secular woke cultural Marxism they currently do. No culture, like its government, is worldview neutral.
For a long time, I struggled with what as conservative and Evangelical Christians we’re trying to accomplish. What exactly is a Christian society or nation? What does such a thing look like? Is it fifty-one percent of the people being professing Christians? I was always frustrated because I knew intuitively what makes a nation Christian isn’t just the number of Christians. I’m not sure there’s ever been a time in Western history where the vast majority of people in the nations of Christendom were Christians, yet the people, Christian or not, considered themselves living in Christian nations. Most Christians seem to believe if we just convert enough people things will magically change for the better. It doesn’t work that way.
Joseph Boot in Mission of God relates well how this kingdom-church confusion creates a false dilemma:
Believers tend to think that they are confronted with a very restricted choice in these matters: either pursue a return to a form of the ecclesiastical culture of Christendom where power and authority over various cultural and political matters is restored to a particular church denomination, or accept that we now live in a post-Christian age where the only thing Christians can realistically hope for is being one of many interest groups in a diverse, multicultural society, perhaps with a seat at the table—a chair pulled out for us by a humanistic secular state now to be embraced as the norm for human society.
The second view dominates modern Evangelicalism.
The problem, other than these not being the only two choices, and I would argue neither is the Christian choice, is that both lead to totalitarianism. Neither Christian nor pagan (i.e., secular) totalitarianism lead to good results as the historical evidence makes painfully clear. However, going beyond these two limiting choices we realize there are indeed only two ultimate choices—the rule of God or the rule of man—God or paganism. It is abundantly clear how the latter works, but there is unfortunately an abundance of confusion about how the former would work in the modern world. The rule of God in a nation isn’t really difficult to understand, but ignorance and secular programming makes it so. Bringing such a reality to pass is another story.
The Necessity of Sphere Sovereignty
The concept of sphere sovereignty is critical in the never-ending battle against the spirit of Babel. The concept is as simple as it is contested by those who embrace that spirit. It was first introduced by the great Dutch theologian, statesman, and journalist Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) in a public address at the inauguration of the Free University of Amsterdam. The question comes down to authority and who wields it. Absolute sovereign authority rests in God alone, and He has delegated His authority on earth to human beings; “so that on earth one actually does not meet God Himself in things visible, but that sovereign authority is always exercised through an office held by men.” In this he asks two pertinent questions:
And in that assigning of God’s Sovereignty to an office held by man the extremely important question arises: how does that delegation of authority work? Is that all embracing Sovereignty of God delegated undivided to one single man; or does an earthly Sovereign possess the power to compel obedience only in a limited circle; a circle bordered by other circles in which another is Sovereign?
These spheres interact and overlap in society, but one sphere must never usurp the authority of the other. The only way this possibly works, and thus the only possibility of true liberty in any society, is the acknowledgement of the absolute Sovereignty of Christ. Kuyper explains why.
But behold now the glorious Freedom idea! That perfect and absolute Sovereignty of the sinless Messiah at the same time contains the direct denial and challenge of all absolute Sovereignty on earth in sinful man; because of the division of life into spheres, each with its own Sovereignty.
Stephen Wolfe explains it well in The Case for Christian Nationalism:
[I]t follows that every sphere of life requires a suitable authority, with a suitable power, to make determinations. For this reason, God has granted specific types of power by which the authorities of each sphere make judgments. The family has the pater familiar with patria potestas (“fatherly power”); civil life has the civil magistrate with civil power; the instituted church has the minister with spiritual power, and the individual has a power unto himself. The nature of each sphere dictates the species of power required. These powers and their differences are not arbitrary but arise from the nature of each sphere.
Although as a Thomist he attributes this to “natural law,”16 there is nothing natural about it. It is only when those in power acknowledge the power of God in Christ as the ultimate authority that the state will recognize its limits.
What Do I Call Myself?
When I was 24 and decided I was going off to graduate school to become an academic and scholar, which obviously didn’t work out, I thought political philosophy would probably be the path I took. Since that didn’t happen, I never felt compelled to develop my own distinctly Christian political philosophy. It wasn’t until I started writing my latest book, Going Back to Find the Way Forward, that I realized I needed to do just that. Given I was now going to publicly put myself out there in the battle to save America from its Marxist enemies, and hopefully bring along Christians in the fight, I could no longer depend on others to do my thinking for me. I had to figure out what my Christian faith compelled me to believe about how human beings govern themselves. That’s another way of saying, have my own political philosophy.
It’s clear from the above that I am both a Christian and a nationalist. I believe every Christian given God’s revelation in creation and Scripture is compelled to obviously be the former, but also the latter. The only other option is to be a globalist, and Babel teaches us that is not an option. Another word I’ve come to embrace since I’ve been become aware of and have been listening to Steve Bannon over the last several years is populist. The word gets a bad rap because it is associated with the rabble, with the passions of the people to rebel against any and all authority, to in effect be the authority. Another word for that is anarchy, or as the ancient Greeks called it, Democracy. According to Aristotle, there are three forms of government, and each can be good or bad, and it can by laid out this way:
Who Rules? Good form Bad form
one person monarchy tyranny
few people aristocracy oligarchy
many people polity/timocracy democracy
Timocracy is basically rule by property owners, something we know America’s Founders adopted. Democracy, which America is not (we’re a representative republic), is 51 percent rule.
In their genius, America’s Founders decided to adopt each form of rule in the American republic to hopefully keep the country from going to the bad form of government. Unfortunately, the progressives in the early 20th century came up with the idea of a “living” constitution, which is no constitution at all, and by the 1960s and the Civil Rights revolution, the Constitution was dead. This is laid out in painful clarity and detail by Christopher Caldwell in The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties, one of the most important books of the 21st century.
America has become an oligarchy, or as we now know it, the deep state, a rule by unaccountable “experts” who only care about maintaining and extending their power. This fact, we’re all too painfully aware of now is why we need to bring back the polity (maybe one day God willing timocracy too), and thus why I’ve embraced populism. I will repeat, America is a representative republic, the democracy side, which means our elected representatives are accountable to us, their constituencies. Both parties, or as we disparagingly call them now, the Uniparty, despise their bosses, us. They and we have forgotten that the very first words of our governing document, the Constitution, begins with, “We the people . . . “ Re-founding America is only going to happen if We take back our government from the oligarchy.
Thus, I would now describe myself as a nationalist populist Christian conservative.
Recent Comments