Every Christian is a Christian Nationalist

No Christian is a Christian "Nationalist"
October 11, 2022 November 4, 2022
by E. Wils Kevin Craig || Computer Audio
Despite Christians instructing the magistrate on how they must govern to honor God being the historic protestant position of political theory, many have attempted to malign Christians with the label of “Christian Nationalist” in an attempt to disarm them from public discourse on politics. This term has scared many Christians and caused them to reject Christian Nationalism. This article will respond to some of the major concerns many Christians have with what they perceive Christian Nationalism to be. I'll concede that "Christian Nationalism" is "the historic protestant position of political theory." An argument can be made that Protestantism created nationalism and the "nation-state." An argument can also be made that this was a very bad thing. My goal is to completely overturn historic protestant political theory.

Where the Protestant Reformers Went Wrong
Christian nationalism can be summarized by this: God instituted governments to promote good and punish evil and it is a duty of the Christian to inform the magistrate of what God calls good and evil. This is because Romans 13 details that the government is established by God and is His minister. Uncoincidentally, the word “minister” used here is the same word used for both deacon and servant— “diakonos”; the Christian then must inform the rulers on how they are to honor God with laws that promote good and punish evil. Romans 13 is possibly the most disastrously misunderstood passage of Scripture. The claim that "God instituted governments" is dangerously misleading. I have an entire website on this passage: Romans13.com  In a nutshell:
  • Romans 13 is about "the powers." The "powers" are dark, menacing, evil, demonic forces.
  • Romans 13 says God is sovereign over the principalities and powers. They "serve" (deaconeo) God's purposes.
    • Assyria served God's purposes by raping and pillaging Israel (Isaiah 10).
    • The Medes served God's purposes by destroying Babylon. God even calls the Medes "My sanctified ones" (Isaiah 13). Not because they were moral, ethical, and "sanctified," but because God set them apart and used them for His purposes.
      Unlucky 13 -- How to Read Isaiah 13 and Romans 13
    • Nebuchadrezzar, who destroyed Judah, was God's "servant."
      Jeremiah 25:8-10
      8 Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts; Because ye have not heard my words,
      9 Behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, saith the LORD, and Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and will bring them against this land, and against the inhabitants thereof, and against all these nations round about, and will utterly destroy them, and make them an astonishment, and an hissing, and perpetual desolations.
      Jeremiah 27:6
      And now have I given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant; and the beasts of the field have I given him also to serve him.
      8 And it shall come to pass, that the nation and kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, and that will not put their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, that nation will I punish, saith the LORD, with the sword, and with the famine, and with the pestilence, until I [the LORD] have consumed them by his hand.
    • God is sovereign over violent totalitarian dictators. Savage, barbaric, evil, depraved Emperors, Pharaohs, Caesars, and Führers do not bear the sword in vain when they commit massive, continent-wide evil. They serve His purposes. That doesn't make them "good." That doesn't mean they don't have a moral obligation to repent of doing the things God has ordained them to do. That doesn't mean they will not face God's wrath for doing the very things God "ordained" them to do.
      God "Ordains" Evil
    • Too many of our best and reformed scholars have interpreted Romans 13 not in light of the Scriptures (the Old Testament), but in light of Greco-Roman humanism. Tipping one's hat to Athens is a great way to remain in the good graces of the university/seminary-industrial complex.
  • Romans 13 says we are to "be subject" to the powers. Titus 3:1 says the same thing. Jesus said the same thing when He said "Resist not evil" (Matthew 5:39). Romans 12:14 - 13:7 make up a complete unit:
    • Romans 12: Overcome evil with good.
    • Romans 13: Even the most evil thing on planet earth: the government.
    • Christians are pacifists. We have a moral duty to submit to evil laws which evil men have a moral duty to repeal.
Many have claimed that Christian Nationalism is about instituting a theocracy when nothing could be farther from the truth. That's too bad. Theocracy is the Biblical goal.  But not "Theocratic nationalism." The Biblical standard and goal is to make the world a global Theocracy, or Christocracy. One King; one Kingdom. Not lots of little "nations," Christian or otherwise. There is only one legitimate "nation":

1 Peter 2:9
But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people,
that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;

This "nation" has three branches of government:

For the LORD is our Judge,
The LORD is our Lawgiver,
The LORD is our King;
He will save us
Isaiah 33:22

All other "kings" and "lawgivers" are imposters. The Biblical goal is one big global Theocracy. "Christian Nationalism" is sub-Biblical, no matter how Biblical some components may be, no matter how trenchant its criticisms of depraved secular nationalism.

Christian Globalism: The "Vine & Fig Tree" Worldview

Anarcho-Christocracy - "Liberty Under God" - Market Christocracy
God created three institutions, the Family, Church, and Government as distinct institutions with unique roles. The role of the government is detailed in Romans 13:3-4 as “Rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior but for evil… for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.” Nothing in the Bible says God created "the Government" in the same way or with the same legitimacy as He created the Family. "Civil Governments" were created by men who were rebelling against God and Family. Beginning with Cain (Genesis 4:17); Lamech (Genesis 4:23-24); Nimrod (Genesis 10:8-12); Pharaoh (Genesis 12:15,20; 37:36); Chedorlaomer (Genesis 14); “the Kenite, the Kenizzite, the Kadmonite, the Hittite, the Perizzite, the Rephaim, the Amorite, the Canaanite, the Girgashite and the Jebusite” (Genesis 15:19-21), who were later imitated by Israel (1 Samuel 8, "like all the nations"). 

The Origin of "the State" ("Civil Government") - Political Philosophy 101 According to the Bible

The Family is the basic institution. Families do business in a "market."

PATRIAGORA: Patria | Family + Market | Agora

Business is moral and ethical conduct by families. Why is "Business Government" not listed among the "God-created institutions?"

But when families or the businesses they create use violence or fraud, they become "governments." God did not "institute" "government" the way He "instituted" the family.

Some people distinguish between "government" and "governance." The distinction may be specious. In a Freed Market, most "governance" outside the home takes place in businesses, not churches.

The War Among Three Types of Religions | Gary North

Business = dominion (Genesis 1:26-28).
"Government" = domination. "Power religion"
"Church" is either a pawn of the State, or it's an attempt to "escape" conflict.

"Church" is a pawn of the State when it repeats state slogans like "The State is a divine institution" or when the church talks about the "two tables" of the Law (see below).

"Church" is a fictitious institution. Just as families create businesses, families do "church." The Patriarch Abraham did not "go to church." The Greek word translated "church" is ekklesia. That is a governing "civil" body. Families "do church" by setting up courts as part of doing business with other families:

Matthew 18:15-17
15 “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ 17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church [ekklesia]. But if he refuses even to hear the church [ekklesia], let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.

Businessmen are ethical; tax collectors are not, and are to be put out of the church, like those who are found to be "heathen."

Paul's first letter to the Corinthians
1:1-3
1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
2 To the church [ekklesia] of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified [ἁγιάζω (hagiazō)] in Christ Jesus, called to be saints [ἅγιος (hagios)], with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
6:1-7
1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints [ἅγιος (hagios)]? 2 Do you not know that the saints [ἅγιος (hagios)] will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? 4 If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge? 5 I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren? 6 But brother goes to law [civil magistrate] against brother, and that before unbelievers!
7 Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law [civil magistrate] against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated?
Governments have been ordained by God to promote good and punish evil and they do this by instituting just laws. Since good and evil are defined by God, it is the Christian’s duty to inform rulers on how laws are to honor Christ. Governments have no right to "institute just laws." God alone is our Lawgiver (Isaiah 33:22). God's Laws in the Bible are to be applied in all cases. When creature-kings make new laws, they do so to evade the laws made by the Creator-King (Romans 1:25; 1 Samuel 8:7).
The distinction between Christian Nationalism and Theocracy can be made because Christian Nationalism is about enforcing the second table of the Law and not the first. When God gave Moses the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20) the laws were divided into two tables. The first table, commandments one through three, dealt with God’s relationship with mankind and proper worship. This is administered through the body of Christ with the Church. The second table of the law, commandments four through ten, deals with man’s relation to his fellow man. This is basic civil law which is the duty of the government to enact. Since Christian Nationalism is about proper enforcement of the second table of the law Christians from varying traditions can unite around it as it does not involve the institution of laws regarding proper worship. This "two tables" paradigm is a bogus "two kingdoms" idea with no Scriptural support.

First, the most recent scholarship contends that the "two tables" are two copies of the covenant, one for God and one for man.

The Two Tables of the Covenant: Meredith Kline

Second, even if this theory isn't correct, there is simply not a shred of evidence in the Bible to divide the law into two separate water-tight compartments. Notice Exodus 32:15

15 And Moses turned, and went down from the mount, and the two tables of the testimony were in his hand: the tables were written on both their sides; on the one side and on the other were they written.

If Kline is incorrect, and the two tables were not two identical copies, then the 10 commandments were written on four sides of two tablets. The Bible says nothing to divide these four sides into two separate categories, one for "church" and the other for "state." How do we know that there weren't three commandments on "page one." three commandments on "page two," three commandments on "page three," and one commandment left over on "page four?"

The "two tables" theory is a pawn of "two kingdoms" theology, which is completely unbiblical.

Even Christian nationalists of the past didn't put this idea into practice: the "civil government" enforced the "first table":

How The First Commandment was Applied in Early American Law
• Idolatry and the American Revolution
How The Second Commandment was Applied in Early American Law
How The Third Commandment was Applied in Early American Law
• The Oath
• Atheists and The Oath
• Official Oaths Founded on Christian Belief | Yale Law Journal, 1930

The Ten Commandments and American Law: Response to Marci Hamilton

The First Commandment is radically State-centered, not "worship" centered.

If the civil government is supposed to enforce the "second table," how does the civil government enforce the 10th commandment against coveting? How does the civil government know if I'm coveting? Where does the Bible set forth a civil punishment for coveting?

The whole "two tables" theory breaks down when analyzed closely. It sounds good and pious, but it's not actually in the Bible.

There are a lot of theories which "sound good" because we've heard them repeated so often. They're bogus.
While it has been made clear that Christian Nationalism is about instituting just civil laws, some have thrown out the accusation that Christian Nationalists want to force conversions. Only the Holy Spirit has the power to draw sinners to Himself. However, when a government’s laws are based on God’s word those who transgress them will know they have broken God’s law. The Apostle Paul said in Galatians 3:24 that “the law is our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we may be justified by faith.” The Law does not save us but it teaches us we need to be saved. This is the first step in telling people they need the Gospel as they cannot know the good news without first understanding their depravity and need for a savior. Having civil laws based on God’s word will in turn teach people they need a savior. It's impossible to "force conversions," of course, but it's not impossible to force sinners "into the closet."
Christian Nationalism is not uniquely American, nor is it about spreading Americanism. God calls all the nations to honor Him. However, different nations are made up of unique people with a specific culture so it may look slightly different in the cultural context but all nations must have laws that honor God by promoting good and punishing evil. For example, Poland declared Jesus Christ as “King of Poland” on December 20th, 2016. Some nations like the United Kingdom are still monarchies which would make the process for how governments promote good and punish evil look different. This has led some to think Christian Nationalism is a threat to democracy; thankfully, in the United States, we have a Republic. Nonetheless, if by “democracy” they mean killing unborn babies, “gay marriage”, trans’ing the kids, and normalizing pedophilia then, they would be correct in their assertion that it is indeed a threat to their so-called “democracy.” This is because these heavily promoted narratives go directly against God’s law. Their highly coveted “democracy” is typically just a sleight of hand to implement the progressive agenda. I agree that America's Founders opposed Democracy and imposed a "Republic." But a "republic" is still unBiblical:
  • Plato wrote about a "republic" which was a tyranny.
  • The USSR stood for the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics."
  • The "People's Republic of China" is another example of a "Socialist Republic"
  • Iran is an "Islamic Republic"
I would not pledge my allegiance to any of these "republics."

I agree with "Christian nationalists" that progressives saying "this is a threat to our democracy" are Orwellian and dangerous. I do have many things in common with "Christian nationalists," even though they don't necessarily agree with my deconstruction of Protestant political theory.
Some have claimed that being a Christian Nationalist means only caring for your own country. This has been a result of the post-war liberal consensus that the only way to properly love other nations is to first hate your own. Scripture does not tell us to love our neighbor by hating our own family, but tells us the exact opposite when the Apostle Paul states in 1 Timothy 5:8, “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” Paul is saying that even the pagans take care of their own so how much worse is it that Christians don’t take care of their own? This principle can be applied at the national level as well because the nation is a large group of people with common descent and shared culture. If even non-Christian nations take care of their own, how much worse would it be for a Christian nation to not take care of its own? 1 Timothy 5:8 cannot be applied at the national level. "Nationalism" is about government politicians. Does 1 Timothy 5:8 mean Christian politicians must "take care of" their constituents? That sounds like wealth redistribution.

My duty to a Christian a few miles away in Mexico is greater than my duty to an atheist thousands of miles away on either of the coasts. Faith, not politics, makes someone "my own."

Galatians 6:10
As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.

Politicians cannot "provide for his own" except by extorting money from others.

common descent and shared culture: Christianity is not about people of blood, but of faith. This is what being "born again" is about (John 3:3)

1 Peter 1:23-25
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all [common descent] is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

What good is "common descent?"

Matthew 3:9
And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

I have no "shared culture" with a depraved, perverse, imperialistic nation.
Over time Christian Nationalism will result in a people and nation that develop laws that explicitly protect Christians and Christian worship. This has caused some to assert that “the Church flourished under persecution.” Christ will build His Church in any political environment because His Gospel conquers human hearts regardless of their kings. Just because the early Church suffered under persecution it is not prescribing persecuting governments to spread the Gospel. Christ said in Matthew 5:10 “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness sake, for theirs is the kingdom of God.” This means it’s a blessing to be persecuted because it means the world identifies us with Christ. It’s a blessing to be in Christ and persecution is evidence of that blessing but Christ is not prescribing Christians to make governments that persecute them. I agree with this last line. When Jesus said "render unto Caesar," He was not saying that Caesar had a moral right or duty to conduct a military invasion of Israel, slaughtering thousands of Jews, install an undemocratic military dictatorship, put them under tribute, and subject them to forced labor (Matthew 5:41). The fact that we are to "be subject" to governments does not mean that governments are morally legitimate.
While it is true that the Global Church has survived and continues to survive under persecution, some environments are more hostile to the Gospel than others. This is what David Innes stated in ‘Christ and the Kingdoms of Men’ when he said:  

“While civil governments can neither generate love nor coerce it, it can do what is within its sphere of competence: to protect the spiritual environment, conditions favorable to cultivating that love for God. In doing this, it is not doing the work of the Church but only removing impediments to an accommodating environment for the work.”

  
Since we live in a Republic it would be quite foolish to vote for our persecution; however, it is also about creating an environment favorable to the Gospel. However, we should make the distinction between prescriptive and descriptive passages in scripture about government persecution.  
Conflating Christ’s heavenly Kingdom with an earthly kingdom has caused many to point out that Christ said, “my kingdom is not of this world.” This is true; however, “The statement, “My kingdom is not of this world,” relates to the origin of Christ’s kingdom, not the location. The authority and power of Christ’s kingdom are drawn from a source outside of this world– from God our heavenly Father. Christ’s headship is not of human origin but divine. Christ has authority not because the people of a nation elect Him as King but because God has given Him this authority as we see in Matthew 28:18 where Christ says, “all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”  "Civil government" is "of this world."

Christ's Kingdom is "in" this world, but not "of" this world.
Christ then issues the Great Commission to disciple the nations. As Pastor Andrew Isker has pointed out “the verb is “mateteusate” (disciple) and the direct object is “ethne” (nations).” This means that Christians are to teach the nations which involves teaching the magistrate. However, even those who claim this is only a call to “make disciples of individuals” the result is the same as the nations will be filled with Christians. As Christians make disciples in these nations and of these nations the natural conclusion is for Christians to end up in political seats of power, just as with Constantine. However, many Christians think Christians should not seek political power. This is quite foolish as it’s saying that it would be better for pagans to run the country. If the saints will judge angels they certainly should be able to handle affairs in this realm. It is a fallacy to move from “ethne” ("nation" as people) to nation as "magistrate." A Christian "people" can live in a state of Theocratic Patriagora (family business [anarcho-capitalism] under God) with no "magistrate." 

"the magistrate" -- The State -- politicians redistributing family property to "their own" (special interests) -- is something that needs to be abolished.

It is a SIN to be a Magistrate

Christians can "disciple the nations," that is, ethnic groups, without placing those ethnic groups under the political domination of a "magistrate." 

This is quite foolish as it’s saying that it would be better for pagans to run the country
No, it's saying that it would be better if nobody but Christ "runs" the country: Planning: Free vs. Centralized
Recent events have caused some to equate the blasphemous book “President Donald J. Trump, The Son of Man – The Christ”, with Christian Nationalism. Nothing could be further from the truth and no serious Christian Nationalist is advocating this. As in Psalm 2, Christian Nationalism is the call for all rulers to kiss the Son and honor Him with how they rule. Governments and their rulers are ministers of God and subjected to Him. Statism elevates the State to God as they become the final authority. The problem with nationalism/statism is not that the State becomes "the final authority." The problem is the entire concept of "authority." No creature should have authority over another creature. All authority belongs to the Creator (Romans 1:25; Isaiah 33:22; 1 Samuel 8:7; Matthew 28:18). Political "authority" is the right to be a god. It is the right to impose violence on others. Christians who try to exercise political authority but say the Son is the "final" authority are just as misguided as non-Christians who try to exercise authority but ignore the authority of Christ. Both are fascist. Both are socialist. Neither is Christian.
Based on all of this, many have claimed this is no different than basic Christianity and historic protestant political theory, and in this assertion, they would be correct. However, if you believe abortion must be banned and mutilation of children with “gender transition surgeries” must be ended then you’re going to be called a Christian Nationalist. Embrace the term. We’re all Christian Nationalists now. Sure, I may be called a "Christian nationalist" by those described above:

Nonetheless, if by “democracy” they mean killing unborn babies, “gay marriage”, trans’ing the kids, and normalizing pedophilia then, they would be correct in their assertion that it is indeed a threat to their so-called “democracy.”

But I do not embrace the term "Christian nationalist." I am a Christian anti-nationalist.
I am a Christian Globalist.

"Christian nationalists" will be the first to tell you that these two visions are completely incompatible, even though they are both incompatible with secular/progressive "democracy."