Aaron Davis blogs at “The Writing World of Aaron Davis.“
A few days ago, I sent out a tweet on Twitter that said, “Nationalism and Christianity are mutually exclusive.” This is a concise statement (as they must be on Twitter) and deserves some explanation.
The first thing to be examined is definitions. Labels are useless unless clearly defined. Nationalism does not simply refer to love or devotion to one’s country. According to Marriam-Webster, Nationalism is: “loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.” Further, Merriam-Webster separates patriotism as being only the first part of the above definition. Loyalty and devotion to one’s nation is patriotism. Nationalism goes beyond patriotism. Also, I am not referring to duty. The Apostle Paul taught that Christians should respect the rule of civil authority and Jesus taught that people should perform their civic duties. So I am not stating that a Christian cannot love his or her country nor am I stating that a Christian cannot perform his or her civic duties.
Nationalism goes beyond love and devotion to a primary emphasis on the promotion of a nation’s culture and interests. The American Heritage Dictionary also includes this definition, “Devotion, especially excessive or undiscriminating devotion, to the interests or culture of a particular nation-state.” [emphasis mine] Again this is not simply devotion to a country but undiscriminating devotion.
Nationalism warps the good and edifying notions of civic duty and patriotism to become something else. The Nationalist will not discriminate, i.e. discern between nation and God. Nationalism asserts the nation as the highest good and thus, to the nationalist, identity is found in the nation, and what is best for the nation is the moral compass. This stands opposite Christianity in that to the Christian, God is the highest good and identity is found in Christ.
Thus, where civic duty and even patriotism are acceptable, and even encouraged, in the Christian life, nationalism has no place.
I do not bring this up because I think that Donald Trump is a nationalist per se. Such conjecture is not helpful. I do believe he is an authoritarian, a brand of leadership that nationalists generally favor. He does surround himself with people who are nationalists and his election has given rise to the voice of nationalists in what is being called the “alt-right.”
Despite its recent time in the spotlight, the “alt-right” is nothing new. Over the years, I have received emails from those who call themselves “Pro-Western Christianity.” They define Christianity as a devotion to God, Race, and Family. Back then, they were marginalized. Their hatred of adoption (particularly international adoption), their hatred of global missions, etc were hardly noticed. Now, they are finding a place in mainstream politics. Moreover, they have found a place in the party that many Evangelicals feel shares their values. The camel’s nose is well into the tent.
However, while Christians may love their country and perform their civic duties, Christians cannot ignore the fact that we are first part of a Kingdom which transcends nations and ethnic groups. Christians cannot ignore the fact that we are called to make disciples of all nations, and that our true home is not of this world.
The Nationalists are finding their place in mainstream politics. I urge those Christians who work within the GOP to stand against this. However, all Christians must now work to prevent nationalism from finding a place within our churches before it poisons our mission and our very faith.
Aaron Davis is the author of the novel Street Preacher and is currently working on a memoir, Baggage Claim. He is developing a speaking and coaching ministry to address mental health in the church and ministry. If you are interested in having him speak to your church or organization, click here for more information.
The principle of righteous Nationalism is promoted within the Kingdom of God:
Galatians 6:10 So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.
Likewise, there is nothing wrong with political nationalism within proper bounds. It is only right that a nation make its own people a higher priority than the people of other nations when it comes to national policy. Nationalism proper, should be contrasted with Globalism which subordinates national policy to other nations. This is just as idolatrous as an idolatrous form of Nationalism.
There is nothing wrong with Nationalism that recognizes Christ as Supreme and over all nations, and likewise recognizes the equality of other nations, but shows preference to one’s own. But Nationalism can become idolatrous when not subordinated to God. I believe it is this idolatrous form of Nationalism that the author is condemning, and rightly so. Nevertheless, God is pleased with righteous Nationalism.
I would love to hear an explanation of how you get “righteous nationalism” out of Galatians 6:10.
That is quite an exegetical stretch. Could you flesh out your argument beyond a simple proof text?
The Kingdom of God takes precedence over all other kingdoms.
I think that is Aaron’s point. Nationalism is excessive loyalty to an earthly kingdom.
Doug, the Kingdom does more than just take precedence over all other Kingdoms. It includes people from them. Thus, it transcends our earthly nations. Galatians 6:10 calls us to do good to everyone, especially other Christians, so how does that create a “righteous nationalism?”
Aaron,
1 Peter 2:9 tells us, “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation…” Our primary loyalty as Christians is to this “holy nation”; its citizens are to take precedence over our legitimate concern for others not part of it. Legitimate nationalism mirrors this. Nationalism goes astray when it assumes superiority over other nations. Nevertheless, it is good to esteem our national identity and fellow countrymen as Paul did:
Romans 9:3-5 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.
We need to recognize there is good and bad nationalism.
“He does surround himself with people who are nationalists and his election has given rise to the voice of nationalists in what is being called the “alt-right.””
I’m curious who are these Nationalists DT has surrounded himself with? I did click on the link over to the reading list post, the pro western Christianity site. They are scary, but I’m not sure how widespread they are. Can you point to where these types are mainstream?
Thanks.
There are resourvces who define nationalism and use the term patriotism clearly as an important part of the definition.
Like many words being used today,. the meaning often is not dictionary bound. If the above were a classroom lecture on nationalism, it would probably be understood in the context which I think Aaron is trying to convey.
For the guy and gal who do not carry a dictionary around, we need to understand their concept of this term. From my observation many (within the USA, concerning the USA) would define nationalism as a person who is pro USA because they “feel” the nation is slipping away from what the founders meant for it to be. They are pro building a wall… Pro, removing those in the country illegally… pro life… Pro church and more of a pro political conservative mindset. They are not using the term in a Christian behavioral manner. Trying to force a meaning upon them they are not even considering does not help any conversation.
Its kinda like the non-Calvinist telling the Calvinist what they believe because they use certain terms and Calvinists telling non-Calvinists what they believe because they use certain terms (Illustrative purposes only, not making this a Calvinists discussion).
I can appreciate the desire to make everyone use a common dictionary the way we do, or should. The reality, even among believers, is it ain’t gonna happen.
I think we would do better, trying to understand what the people mean when the term is being used, instead of rigidly defining it for them and implying to not define it the way we want is an anti-Christian mindset.
From a Nationalist of the USA, celebrating National Day in the UAE (December 2, though the festivities are all week) with the Emirates and Expats who reside here with me.
Know what I mean?
Jon, I think you summed it up well for me and I agree with you and Rick below. Rick’s comments make sense to me. This whole post, though well intentioned, seems to be warning about a non pervasive problem.
In an era of flag burning, erosion of religious freedom, attacks on Second Amendment rights and criticism of TV personalities for attending a church where the Pastor preaches the Bible, I don’t think excessive Nationalism is nearly as great a problem as INSUFFICIENT Patriotism. For crying out loud, Fidel Castro dies and you would have thought he was Mother Theresa.
This is like warning a drowning man not to get dehydrated. It’s just not really the problem at all. It’s almost, but not quite, the opposite of the problem.
It depends on the context. I don’t think it is a stretch to say that nationalism is likely a far greater tendency than lack of patriotism in most SBC churches (at least this is certainly my experience). So on a blog addressed to those within the SBC, I think that this article is quite appropriate. If it were appearing on CNN or in a newspaper, then I would see the point, but it seems to me that in the context of the SBC, it is a much needed perspective.
Thanks for this post. Deeply grateful that the danger of this movement is not without notice among the SBC family.
I don’t know that nationalism is a widespread problem, but it does exist. Examples of toxic nationalism include Ann Coulter’s criticism of Christian American doctors volunteering in Africa to treat Ebola. She said “Can’t anyone serve Christ in America anymore?”. Likewise Trump’s tirade against bringing Ebola infected Americans to the US for treatment. Also his criticism of Jeb Bush for speaking Spanish on the campaign trail.
Our church is heavily involved in Operation Christmas Child, and some of us regularly speak at other churches to try to get them involved. Most of the time we are well received and people see the value of the ministry. But there’s always some who reject the ministry because there are poor children in America.
During the GW Bush era, our standing around the world began to plummet. Those of us who travel outside the country were naturally concerned. But a lot of people (in my opinion, those who seldom if ever leave the country) were not only unconcerned, but a little bit proud of it.
Bill, Marxists exist in this country too. Probably as widespread as these so called Nationalists mentioned in this post. So again, probably alarm about a non alarming non trend and non widespread problem.
Aaron,
I think this is very good and helpful article.
I’m especially appreciative of your differentiation between nationalism and patriotism – a point that it appears many of the commenters who have taken issue with your article have obviously missed.
This: “Nationalism is: “loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.”
In the sense that the US is the freeest country in the world, I like the idea of exporting that kind of freedom rooted in a constitution such as ours.
It is hard to find fault with anything Aaron has written. Christians are not to put anything ahead of the Kingdom of God. We are to serve, work, and minister in the Kingdom of God.
I do not question Aaron’s definition of nationalism. What I do question is the application of that definition. Some will be quick to label those who believe in secure borders and deportation of illegals as nationalists. Some would label those who desire to refuse refugees who can’t be properly vetted as nationalists. Some would even claim those who want to the USA to break long established trade agreements because they feel they were established on faulty science are nationalists. The article is good but the application will be messy.
I am a Christian and I am also an American. My father was a career military man who fought in the Battle of Normandy. As long as he was a live there was an American flag flying at his house.
My Savior died on Calvary’s cross to redeem my soul for eternity. While I love America I am devoted to Christ.
Dean, I could not agree with you more. Thanks for these comments brother. I am one of those who believes in the items you mentioned in your 2nd paragraph. According to some, then, I would be labeled a nationalist. So be it. Labels can be right sometimes, and wrong some times.
Dean,
Quit being so reasonable. LOL.
Seriously, you have made some good points. While I tend to agree with the cautions Aaron has written and shared here (as recent as 3 years ago I may not have) I do see where the application could sweep up people who are not overly zealous in their love of country (nationalists) into the same bucket with those who might be. I see your point that not all people who believe in secure borders, and seek appropriate vetting for refugees are overly nationalistic (for example) – but just as you said the application of those principles can be messy.
I do think that nationalism (though often unintentional) is a problem in the “American church”. (I placed American church in quotes because the idea of the American church itself is faulty – as there is just the church.)
I think it is always good for us to examine our patriotism as it is just one of the “passions” that can damage and adversely impact our pursuit of “setting our affections on the things above and not on the things of the world.” (Colossians 3)
Thinking that Christians should oppose Nationalism is like saying the Constitution of the United States is for other countries as well. The narrow dictionary definition may be the problem. It is kind of like Obama stating that “history will judge” the acts of Fidel Castro (duh).
If our home were truly of this world, then I might fight against the various definitions of Nationalism. As it is, Nations come at go at God’s behest. Those captured by Christ exist only to share the love of our capturer…. and, to all Nations. There is a way to pursue a Nationalistic endeavor and be pleasing to God at the same time. There is really no reason to pit one against the other unless it opposes God’s Word (probably what the author is getting at), since Nations and pursuits of those Nations will always be an earthly reality.
Chris, I think that is Aaron’s point exactly. That we should not opppse patriotism, being good citizens and working to preserve our constitution and freedoms – but we should not elevate those things above Christ and his love of people of all nations – in other words we should not let our love for overzealous love of country blind us to the greater kingdom.
I think that is what I heard as well Tarheel, and agree when a form of Nationalism becomes abhorrent. Nationalism could be defined very pro Christian or very anti Christian. I guess it is really about the definition. The title struck me as a very specific plea covering a very broad definition. I’m not in disagreement with the gist of the article, yet the same rationale might apply to a statement like “all Christians must take a stand against congregationalism”. I statement like that would need more definition as well, while be alarming to some yet soothing to others.
Tarheel, I also believe the title block was very effective! Aaron did a good job all the way around 🙂
“we should not elevate those things above Christ and his love of people of all nations”
I agree as one who sees himself as a Nationalist and who serves outside my country (USA), reaching the nations. Even beyond my borders here in the UAE.
Maybe that is why I am finding diffiulty in what Aaron is saying. Not claiming he is wrong but that what he says does not fit every Nationalist… Christian.
I tell mywife often, I love her more than anythng and in that I am not saying I love Christ less but because I love Christ more, I love her more than anything. That line of thinking would not fit some rigid definition or make sense to everyone but it is what it is. My wife understands what I mean and is glad I do.
Not everything we say fits into a box filled with strict definitions. At least for me.
Jon, your points are well taken! “Not claiming he is wrong but that what he says does not fit every Nationalist… Christian.” That is the proper context IMHO.
Tarheel, I agree “we should not elevate those things above Christ.” Amen!
I think it is a mistake to assume that what works best for Americans will work best for the rest of the world. Is democracy better than monarchy? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. America is an individualistic society, and that works great for us. But should Thailand become individualistic? Asians tend to be collectivistic and that seems to work for them. We don’t like a large safety net, but Denmark loves theirs. Singapore is basically a benevolent oligarchy. We would hate it, but the streets of Singapore are clean, there’s almost no unemployment, and there’s almost no crime or corruption.
We thought we’d export democracy to Iraq, but the Iraqis weren’t ready for it, and we did it badly.
The trouble with exporting Western values is that we also export Western vices.
If nationalism says “our way is best for us” I’m all for it. If nationalism says “our way is better than yours” (implying they should become like us) then I think it’s wrong.
“If nationalism says “our way is best for us” I’m all for it”
Bill, I agree. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I was raised under the guise of that statement. Exporting Americanism to others was not what the Founders spoke about, it’s what the New World Order folks want. Empire building has always ended in disaster.
Patriotism is fine. Nationalism is a form of idolatry, plain and simple.
At this point in our history as a country, racism is distinct from nationalism. Nationalism in America should embrace the melting pot of a culture that is America. Sadly, the political left, right and middle have forgotten that this nation is a melting pot and instead embrace “My America” or leave it!
Aaron, I wonder why the definition is a problem in regard to nations but is OK for most Christians in regard to sports teams. Consider one of the definitions above where I’ve replaced “sports team” for “nation”: Devotion, especially excessive or undiscriminating devotion, to the interests or culture of a particular sports team. What exactly is the problem with having a devotion to one thing over another if that devotion is ultimately subservient to Christ and His kingdom? I think replacing nation with sports team just helps, by analogy, to see my point.
Peace and love,
Moz
Devotion that is subservient to Christ is not undiscriminating
Excessive *or* undiscriminating. So, can devotion that is subservient to Christ be rightly described as excessive, if the definition of excess is that which is normal in regard to devotion to a thing, such as a sports team or nation?
Ouch! er, ah, I mean, great point!
“Nationalism is a form of idolatry, plain and simple.”
WOW!!! It has been a long time since I have been accused of idolatry.
God has set Nations in motion. He has created them. He is not an idol maker. …… Surely your accuser is using some other definition to Nationalism than what you attribute Ron. The Apostle Paul is pretty clear when he echoed what God appoints as Nations….” From one man he made every nation of the human race to inhabit the entire earth, determining their set times and the fixed limits of the places where they would live, so that they would search for God and perhaps grope around for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us” (Acts) Nations and their formation is how God works.
Although I’m sure I sin and make things idols. Thank goodness for Christ!
Nationalism on the one hand… may be just another way for some to say “I’m not happy about the laws that create the boundaries of the nation that God has formed”.
meant to write Jon…not Ron (index finger flinch) 🙂
I think it is important to remember that the idols of globalism and the idols of nationalism are both idols and both are contrary to God’s ultimate plan for the world. In the meantime, as citizens of the City of God we live side by side with idolaters, both of the globalistic and of the nationalistic stripe. It is not our role, before Jesus’ return, to set up theistic national government structures nor theistic global government structures, but rather to proclaim the gospel and to live, in our local, national, and global contexts, as citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven, modeling the values of the Kingdom of Heaven locally, nationally, and globally. We also seek to serve and demonstrate our love for our neighbors locally, nationally, and globally, both through political involvement as well as through other means.
Spot on David!
“It is not our role, before Jesus’ return, to set up theistic national government structures nor theistic global government structures…”
David,
If this is not our role, then why are we called to call all men and nations to repentance? Does not the LORD expect all Nations to acknowledge Him in word and deed now? Will Jesus expect something different from all men after He returns that He does not likewise already expect from them right this very moment? Do you assume Christ does not expect all governments to be truly “theistic” now? Why is it then that He will judge the world? Why is it that all “the nations” will be gathered before Him?
Doug, I believe my article I posted here several years ago responds to your questions: https://sbcvoices.com/eschatology-and-religious-liberty/
David,
I don’t believe your article answers my questions which have to do with what the LORD expects from us now. The verses you quoted exclusively from the Revelation do show us how the LORD feels about sin. And you are correct to assume these passages also apply to forcefully eliminating false god worship in the future — our jealous God abhores it! Psalm 2 refers explicity to this future time, and it contains explicit instructions for the present:
Psalm 2:10-11 “Now therefore, O kings, show discernment; Take warning, O judges of the earth. Worship the Lord with reverence And rejoice with trembling.”
Future judgement never implies freedom in the present to sin against God, but the need for immediate repentance. We are not in any way to encourage our fellow man in the abomination of false god worship, rather we are to seriously warn him to flee from the wrath to come. We are to seek righteousness in all of society — now!
So are you saying it is God’s will that we as Christians rule in the secular realm with an iron rod in the present age, just as Jesus will do in the age to come? Are you opposed to the concept of religious liberty? It is one thing to call kings, just as we call all people, to personal faith and repentance. It is another thing altogether to set up theocratic government structures in the name of Jesus before Jesus Himself comes to reign from the throne of David.
David,
We are to rule according to the authority God gives. Many Christians throughout history have been in a minority position. Many have not. To whom much is given much is required. If my neighbor wants to set up a temple to worship a false God, so that not only his whole family can be led to hell, but also many others in society as well, would you be opposed to stopping this great evil committed against God?
I would be opposed to any coercive effort to keep people from following their own religious beliefs and convictions—provided the practice of their religious beliefs and convictions does not violate the basic human rights and/or legitimate safety concerns of others. No true worship of God, in my opinion, is coerced worship.
Doug, If I understand what you are saying, you are advocating a view called dominion theology, theonomy, and/or Christian Reconstructionism. Is this accurate? Also, do you hold to a postmillennial view of eschatology?
If so, then I believe you hold to a very flawed system of theology with very negative and even dangerous consequences for the advance of the gospel. One of my main goals in my writing and teaching is to expose the errors of this school of thought.
David,
No, I’m not advocating dominion theology, theonomy, and/or Christian Reconstructionism. I’m simply advocating honor for Christ alone, and a concern for the souls of men. You seem to be minimizing the danger of false god worship, and not contemplating the gravity of this in the eyes of God. When you say “religious freedom” are you not saying “freedom to worship any and all gods”? You will not find any support for this false freedom in the Word of God. True religious freedom is only in Christ.
David,
I said nothing about coerced worship. I asked you about preventing blatant false worship which endangers the souls of children and members of society at large. Is this not the ultimate safety concern?
I believe that prohibiting someone, with the aid of the legal system, backed up (at least in theory) with police and military force, from worshiping false gods is the same thing as coercion. I believe the tools we as Christians are to use to oppose such false worship are the proclamation and teaching of the gospel, which those who hear are free to receive or reject, not the civil legal system or government structures.
Apart from the specific context of theocratic OT Israel, I do not know of anywhere in the Word of God where it indicates that God has assigned to civil government the authority or responsibility to watch out for the souls or spiritual welfare of its citizens. In the NT dispensation, that is the task of the church.
David,
The activities of ISIS can be accurately viewed as religious expression. Do you oppose restraining their religious expression even though — in your opinion — it is violent? Assuming you are for restraining their “violent” religious expression, why would you not support the restraining of the infinitely greater violence of spreading false god worship which works eternal violence against men’s souls?
It is the role of the state to restrain physical violence. It is the role of the church, through the preaching and teaching of the gospel, to restrain false god worship. That is the system God has ordained for this present age. Who am I to oppose Him?
Doug, Also, I am not sure if you are Southern Baptist or not. But, once again, if I am understanding you correctly, it appears you are advocating something that goes against what is stated in the Baptist Faith & Message here:
XVII. Religious Liberty
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.
David,
In 1 Timothy the “lawful” uses of law are defined:
“…realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.”
Notice the religious entries “ungodly and sinners,” “unholy and profane.”
So do you disagree with the Baptist Faith & Message?
David,
Your own article contradicts it. The BFM states: “The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends.” If this were true, then why would Christ be said to rule in the future with a rod of iron? In Romans we are told God himself instituted government to restrain evil. Government and the Gospel go hand in hand — both are means of God. Apart from government assistance the Gospel is ultimately overrun. Just look at Acts to see how many times the apostles relied on government assistance to propagate the Gospel.
Hmmm, I hesitate to comment and yet perhaps I dare not comment here. I know you are in the middle of a discussion with David so perhaps you have let rhetoric get away from you. But if not, let me say that I consider your statement, ‘Government and Gospel go hand in hand’ to be blasphemy. The Governments of this world can be used in God’s providence for sure- and they are- but the glorious and eternal Gospel is proclaimed by God’s people who are of a Kingdom that is NOT of this world. The weapons of our warfare are not the weapons of this world. The Gospel of the Cross is proclaimed by those who live a life of the cross. We are not to seek an earthly kingdom and no earthly kingdom will deliver us from the evils of this age. We are a Kingdom of Priests who pray and repent on behalf of the people and teach them the truth of the Kingdom. Any looking to the Governments of this world to bring change or any sort of ‘salvation’ is idolatry.
Strider,
In no way did I imply government performed the gospel function of reconciling men to God. Government performs the civil, but no less critical purpose of restraining evil. Apart from civil government’s restraining function, all societies will rot and the Gospel will be snuffed out. It is for this purpose the LORD institutes governments and will assure their continued existence. Governments that do not promote the Gospel will by the LORD eventually be altered.
One of Doug’s several breathtaking statements: “Apart from government assistance the Gospel is ultimately overrun.”
The Gospel fails in the climate of anarchy? God’s power limited unless assisted by the state?
To say that these are aberrant views is being too kind. Perhaps further reflection would be helpful.
William,
Government and gospel are two hands of the same God?
Perhaps you might address your own statement, I picked just one, before quizzing me.
Lol. The question mark was a mistake.
*Government and gospel are two hands of the same God.
Though we are able to see Doug’s picture, and if we click on his name, we have a link to his blog, where it further identifies him as CCCF Lead (whatever that means), we don’t know his last name or location, nor other information about him. From what he has said here, it would appear he is not in friendly cooperation with the SBC and does not embrace the BFM. While SBC Voices is not a closed forum, and we do welcome constructive dialogue with dissenting voices, it is becoming increasingly evident to me that Doug is likely here with the intention of proselytizing Southern Baptists over to his non-SBC views.
That being said, I am somewhat happy to have Doug’s views on record here, as they are a good example of exactly where not taking a solid position on religious liberty can lead you, and are instructive of the type of teaching we as consistent Baptists are up against on these issues.
Doug: CCC leader would not be Council of Conservative Citizens would it?
I am sorry, CCCF stands for Christ Common Wealth Community Forum?
Christ Commonwealth Community Forum is correct. It is a community forum for non-denominational Christian interaction and local mini-conferences.
I think I’ve read enough to ask “Doug” to kindly identify himself and his interests. I’m with David on the value of his aberrant views. If a commenter pumps a site, let’s not conceal identities.
William,
FYI, I was pretty much raised in SBC churches, even met and married my wife at FBC Jacksonville, Florida back in 1990. Presently I live in Boston, Virginia, just down the road a bit from a church that was pastored by John Leland. That said, I do not hold to everything Baptist. As you can see, I am not an advocate of calling the freedom to worship false gods religious freedom. This is misleading and sends a dangerous message to those who are in need serious warning instead. Religious freedom is an entirely Christian concept. It is only found in Christ. Any other supposed religious freedom is actually slavery to sin, sin that our Jealous God finds highly offensive. On the contrary, we are called to destroy false gods in the minds of men and call them to repentance — to freedom in Christ who alone is LORD. False god worshippers should feel extremely uncomfortable and unsettled in a nation where the Gospel is being rightly proclaimed.
So you’re a dominionist. Just so we are clear.
The info is appreciated. Is “Doug” your real name and is a photo of you? Is there a reason you wish not to be identified?
Yes, Doug is my real name and my photo is legit.
I’ve always viewed the reference to the US as an exceptional nation as both true and prideful. It’s largely true to the extent that God chose to set us apart for a purpose but personal pride is not a helpful response to that sensation any more than it was for the nation of Israel. It causes us to misperceive the intention of the standing and to fail to execute our duty to sojourners.
That is very much the problem of the populist nationalism of Pat Buchanan and Donald Trump.
If a government is to be Christian in nature and function, limiting the rights of non-Christians, I must ask which Christianity gets to lead? Many on this forum do not believe Catholics to be Christians. Many on other forums do not believe Presbyterians (or any Calvinists) to be Christians. Of the dozens (if not hundreds) of Christian denominations, who gets to lead? If we are so concerned about false gods, and false worship to the point we institute a theocratic system of government, I ask which denomination gets to lead?
There was a point in this country where Catholics were not allowed to immigrate to the United States. Where there was much resistance to Catholic churches and schools being formed. Where the first Catholic elected President (JFK) during the election was accused of being submissive to the pope and it was argued politically that a Catholic could not be President because of this. Of course as I said many here on this forum do not believe Catholics to be Christians, so I am sure no tears are being shed. But I ask, is this the treatment we want in this country for every “non-Christian” we come across as it relates to their worship, freedoms, and rights?
Second, I would like to point out that Christianity historically and as evidence today, has always thrived and grew the fastest in places where persecution against it is the strongest. I point to the middle east, China, India, the old soviet block nations, ect. As such, it seems to be a flawed argument stating that a Christian based theocracy is needed to further the kingdom of God.
Apart from the Spirit, History is the greatest teacher we can have. Since Constantine christianized the Romans Empire, we see that while occasionally truly God fearing men (and women) have lead, inevitably due to the flawed human condition, a non-God fearing person would eventually come to power. Look at the English throne. It looks much like the lineage of the kingdom of Judea does it not? Every once in a while a great and Godly leader would come to the throne. And inevitably that would only last for a generation before the sin and corruption of the flesh lead other monarchs into evil. It is impossible to avoid, and no matter the form of Christian government you use, there will always be the propensity for such governments to be sinful as it is run by sinful human beings.
Svmuschany,
You raise many good points. For the sake of brevity I will answer only a few. It is one thing to strive for religious liberty in Christ. This is basically the story of our early nation and colonies. It is quite another to add “all other gods” to the equation. Christian liberty which allows for a broad disagreement in Christ — Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc. — is biblically legitimate. It is one thing due to lack of biblical difinitiveness to disagree on the mode of baptism. It is quite another to allow room for the worship of allah. Some things are definitively knowable and therefore to be condemned. Polytheistic religious liberty is a form of relativism.
That said, it should be kept in mind that the LORD has more in mind than just multiplying disciples. He is after a total righteous society and world. This is where the need for righteous government comes in. And it is enough that we be striving for the goal. Perfection is not attainable in this age, thus there will always be opportunity to focus on bad apples of the past. Nevertheless, Christian governments on the whole have generally been praiseworthy.
Doug is a theonomist and dominionist, fringe views. There is a limit in my view to the value of filling up space here with such. He’s had his shot and offered his link. I appreciate that he responded to my private email but the cryptic comments and disinclination to answer straightforward questions lead me to say, ‘Bye bye.’
His stuff has its own online universe of likeminded folks.
I think I would quote John 18:36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”
Doug, the “total righteous society” is in Christ, never of the world, only in it for a time.
David and others have done a good job to point out just a simple few points that destroy your theological formation.
Governments can attempt to carry out righteous deeds and may at times succeed at moving that direction, yet no government will ever attain to the righteousness required by God. Nations come and go, at the behest of God, not the control of men. Your theological philosophy, although well meaning and rhetorical, does not line up with the Word of God. While picking and choosing of portions of God’s Word is dangerous, even as you appear a sincere follower of Christ, I would encourage you to broaden your understanding of the full counsel of God’s Word. Its important to understand that pointing folks to better government, that is not the same as pointing folks to Christ. One does not equate the other. The Gospel is the power of the God unto salvation, it does not require any help to attain.
Chris,
Christ advocates the pursuit of perfection, although actual perfection is not attainable in this age. That said, common historical Christian teaching has been that it is the responsibility of Christian authorities to assist the work of the Gospel. Saint Augustine said:
“It is indeed better (as no one ever could deny) that men should be led to worship God by teaching, than that they should be driven to it by fear of punishment or pain; but it does not follow that because the former course produces the better men, therefore those who do not yield to it should be neglected. For many have found advantage (as we have proved, and are daily proving by actual experiment), in being first compelled by fear or pain, so that they might afterwards be influenced by teaching, or might follow out in act what they had already learned in word.”
Augustine holds forth the example of Paul, whom the LORD first struck physically to aid in his conversion.
In Eternity, many will be thankful for governments that attempted by force to hold them back from hell, so that they might ultimately be Gospel enlightened. It is not righteousness in a government that lets men run unrestrained to eternal destruction.
Doug…. It appears in your argument you have both contradicted yourself and have also shown the answer. It is God alone that makes the coercive change. Augustine is probably thinking of a man already enlighten by God, …if not, he is wrong as well.
My friend Dr. Lutzer puts its this way “The second observation is that the doctrine of sinless perfection is contradicted by the Scriptures themselves. In 1 John 1:8–2:1, the Scriptures elucidate that ongoing sin is a reality. That is why we are provided an ever-constant advocate in Jesus. Furthermore, there isn’t a second level of Christian grace mentioned.
From the rest of the Bible, we also see that as we grow nearer to God, we grow more aware of our present sinfulness. Consider Isaiah who was one of the few during the reign of Uzziah who pursued the Lord. When God revealed Himself, Isaiah was self-deprecating, for his hidden sins were revealed to him. Consider Paul, perhaps one of the greatest Christians ever, who would not consider himself perfect. In fact, he said just the opposite (Ephesians 3:8; 1 Timothy 1:15). Also, among those who hold to the teachings of Christian perfectionism, most will not advocate that they personally have attained this blessing.
God desires His people to be holy. A biblical command (1 Peter 1:16) does not necessarily mean that we can attain it in this world. Praise Him that He has promised glorification to His children (Romans 8:30), and that all will be fully and finally made perfect in the world to come!”
You can’t pick and choose who does the changing…. We persuade men with the Gospel, not the Government.
Chris,
You seem to be misunderstanding my point about perfection. It is NOT attainable in this age. Nevertheless, Christ bids us to strive towards it. My point was that the inability of governments to be perfect should in no wise stop them from striving towards it.
As for Augustine, he was clearly referring to government coercian of non-believers. I encourage you to read his short essay “Concerning the Correction of the Donatists”. You can find it free online.
Doug, are you for the practice of coercing non-believers into believing?
I could be misunderstanding your point…for sure. Yet striving towards holy or righteous perfection is not a governmental endeavor. The scripture is clear that God has put in place all governments to fulfill His purpose (both good and bad governing). Those captured by Christ for the Kingdom should live far above all governments,…whether good or bad. Believers are able to do that without earthly coercion at any time and in any place.
The beauty of being in Christ!
Chris, no. Governments are to restrain clear outward acts of idolatry/false god worship, i.e. government should prevent the building of a mosque using the threat of punishment: Romans 13:3-4 “For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.” Correspondingly, Gospel preachers are to teardown false gods in the minds of men. Civil authorities and ministers are to be co-laborors in the Gospel. Faith is the gift of God, but he uses complex means to bring it to fruition.
Doug, you say no, but you write yes. Government is made up of people. So if your not for coercing anyone then you agree with Paul. If you think people (governments) coerce folks into believing, then you become like all other religions.
Chris, do you agree that the worship of false gods is an evil practice?
Doug,
You do realize that verse was written to a people living under a pagan government who practiced emperor worship? There is NO context to support your exegesis. The government Paul was referring to was supporting the worship of false gods
Doug,
Just got back from dinner…. but absonjourney ( I love that name) rightly informed you of the context. But, I don’t think that defining evil is what your trying to point us to. You have definitely bought into an eschatological idea that Hengstenberg commented on some time back (he has just missed the point). Your best bet is to ditch that stuff and begin to dive into the full counsel of God’s word concerning the new heavens and the new earth. The community to come is not at all like any of the governments that exist in this temporal earth. This ole place is destroyed, and the temporal governments of today, no matter their worth, are nothing compared to the grace that is given to a dead heart. Those changed hearts persevere in the good governments and the bad governments. As we live a Godly life in this world,…. those acts may certainly have a positive effect on government (people), yet that is never guaranteed nor is it even the point. Our trust is in Christ, not government (people). All the accomplishment of every government since the beginning of time in this world is destroyed. The redeemed come back with Christ into a new heavens and new earth.
Bottom line… even if you think you could coerce someone to Christ, you can’t….its impossible for you and me. That type of thinking is anti-Christ, and again….is like all other religion in some form or fashion.
Absonjourney,
Excellent point! Not only emperor worship, but Christians were being persecuted by the government in the most horrific ways. They had every reason to fear those in authority, contrary to what Paul was saying in Romans 13. Paul’s words seem ludicrous if we see him as seeking to uphold the status quo. But was he? We must remember that the apostles were comissioned to transform the nations by bringing them to obedience in Christ. Paul’s opening declares this: Romans 1:5 “through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name’s sake”. Thus, Romans 13 must be viewed from the perspective of an envisioned Holy Roman Empire, not the pagan one that one soon be conquered and left in the dust of history. Interestingly, Saint Augustine is writing later when the Roman Empire now officially acknowledged the Lordship of Christ. We should envision the same for our nation.
Doug,…. not even close. You have definitely been convinced by those commentaries.
God gave us this….. “Then Jesus came up and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
“Making disciples of all nations”, is seeing individuals come to Christ in the nations. You don’t baptize a nation, you baptize an individual. Huge distinction from what you are teaching. There is no need to conflate what God is doing with an individual and how God uses governing.
Individuals that are in Christ will persevere and are called to obey Him. Believers are transformed through obedience to Christ.
Governments have never saved one individual through coercion. Impossible.
Chris,
The great commission must be understood in light of Daniel 7:14:
“And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.
The context clearly involves whole nations, else the statement by Christ “All authority has been given to me” would not make sense.
That Christ is referring to whole nations is confirmed by Revelation 19:15 — “From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty.” — which corresponds to the admonition in Psalm 2 directed specifically at kings and judges of the nations. They are warned “NOW…Worship the Lord with reverence and rejoice with trembling.” It is the present expectation of our LORD that all nations honor him, not some time in the future.
Our age labors under an individualistic bias.
Doug, The discussion here is very appropriate to the question posed by the article. You and some others believe that believers are called to coerce and maintain nations by the sword. That type of thinking (although you would not probably use something other than the image of a sword to coerce, but what you would use might be interesting) is more in line with the ways of Islam than the ways of Christ.
Actually the “great commission” is to be understood in the light of Christ (love your enemies, do good to those who persecute you, etc., etc.) Your tweak of Daniel actually doesn’t go far enough. What you fail to understand is that Christ “is” reigning, not “will” reign. He “has” conquered, not “will” conquer someday. The nations have always been in the control of Christ….all of them, both good and bad work to Christ’s benefit. We don’t get any browny points for attempting to coerce people into believing what only the Father gives, and the Holy Spirit enlivens. We worship and obey, share the gospel, make disciples, and then do it again. Pretty simple activity.
One can certainly live out the great commission in both bad and good governments. The call is to be obedient in both circumstances. While we should participate and strive to have “good” and free government,…believers have a much greater calling than nation building.
Doug…meant to say “although you would probably not use the sword as the image”…. yet the ultimate result of your teaching is to coerce in some fashion. History has proven that to be tragic in all attempts no matter how noble the attempt. But of course, you could say you would do it perfectly in Christ,….and that would solve the issue of self-reliance. Of course that argumentation is too circular and not biblical enough (but, none-the-less, gives the impression of holiness).
The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy nor Roman. Just had to throw that in as it was a favorite saying by my mentor during my Bachelors degree in History.
Doug, if you would like me to list some of the sins and problems of the (not-so) Holy Roman Empire, I can. It was FAR from a “perfect Christian government”. For that matter any “Christian government” you want to name, I can go and show you its stinking underbelly. Why can I do this? Because humanity is humanity, sin is sin, and this side of heaven, even believers will sin, especially when they are given power. The old saying is very true, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Sure it was…there were all kinds of holes in it, and the people in charge kept roamin’ around to keep from getting killed!
Holey Roamin’ Empire, Batman!
It is no coincidence that our nation has morally rotted under the prevailing evangelical mindset which has dominated our nation for generations. Contrast this with its colonial founding and progression under a totally different evangelical view. Christ said we could positively identify a tree by its fruit. This evidence alone should call our prevailing world view into question.
Christ also said, “Did I not say to you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?”
Chris,
Would you not agree that even the most dedicated father errs at times in disciplining his son? Because of this we don’t reject the biblical admonition to discipline our sons, do we? Government is no different.
But as to you comment about the sword…
Speaking in regards to our formerly Christ-acknowledging Virginia state government, Jefferson in 1781 said this:
“By our own act of assembly of 1705, c. 30, if a person brought up in the Christian religion denies the being of a God, or the Trinity, or asserts there are more Gods than one, or denies the Christian religion to be true, or the scriptures to be of divine authority, he is punishable on the first offence by incapacity to hold any office or employment ecclesiastical, civil, or military; on the second by disability to sue, to take any gift or legacy, to be guardian, executor, or administrator, and by three years imprisonment, without bail. A father’s right to the custody of his own children being founded in law on his right of guardianship, this being taken away, they may of course be severed from him, and put, by the authority of a court, into more orthodox hands. This is a summary view of that religious slavery, under which a people have been willing to remain, who have lavished their lives and fortunes for the establishment of their civil freedom.”
Jefferson can rightly be viewed in this instance as railing against Christian government, a literal fulfillment of Psalm 2:3: “Let us tear their fetters apart and cast away their cords from us!”
Do you agree with Jefferson’s words?
Doug,
I’ve been out working on an old Airstream redo (44 years old), so was not watching the blog. Here is how I might answer some of your questions.
“Would you not agree that even the most dedicated father errs at times in disciplining his son?”
Doug,…not my Father…that is kinda the point. God’s discipline is perfect. Since my Father adopted me, I no longer think in terms of an earthly nation. There is now, for me, an even higher mission above nation building. I’ve instantly been adopted into a heavenly body, family, nation that does not require coercion to advance its mission. While being adopted does not preclude me from improving the nation where God has placed me on earth, my obedience to God is seen remarkably different than before my adoption. No government would have helped me “find” my way to God. God found me. Esther is a great example of how God does not coerce, yet is sovereign for His people.
It is by the very nature of my adoption I will strive to improve my culture, but wholly based upon non-coercion. Earthly laws come and go, yet there is no law against what God has and is doing.
You say…”Because of this we don’t reject the biblical admonition to discipline our sons, do we? Government is no different.”
Oh, but it is different…you are conflating ideas and outcomes of “discipline” based upon an eschatological theory. As I’ve said before, that is a lopsided view of discipline, and a different view of Christ’s call to mission in this world with regard to the full counsel of God.
As far as Jefferson goes…. I think he made good and bad decisions. I’ll continue to advocate for what I think is right in accordance to scripture.
Doug, you make much of the word “nation” in various New Testament passages. However, the actual word is usually “ethnikos” (or a variant of that). You are making the assumption that this Greek word is the exact equivilent of “nation” in its modern usage. I would suggest that the meaning of the Greek word is rather more fluid than that, and is often better understood as “ethnicity” or an ethnic group.
I also find it questionable to interpret the New Testament by the Old. That’s kind of
Other than that, I concur with David, William, absomjourney, svmuschany, and other–and you don’t often find all of us in agreement!
John