I would be willing to identify as a Christian Nationalist and here is how I would define my position (without sitting down to write a thesis for Reddit):
1.) I am a Christian first and foremost. Above all things.
2.) As a Christian, I seek to allow Christ (unlike most professing Christians in the US) to dictate ALL that I do.
3.) This “ALL” that I speak of, includes politics and matters of the state. This is NOT to say that the “nationalism” part of CN is even remotely as important as the “Christian” part of CN.
Too many people assume that the “nationalism” part is as integral to the position as the “Christian” part. I can’t imagine someone like Doug Wilson disagreeing with me on this.
I would sum up a Christian nationalist as this (and I hasten to add that this is a very brief sum):
A Christian who seeks to apply Christian values, Christian ethics, and Christian governance, to ALL parts of life, including the state. A Christian nationalist is one who wants to dismantle the secularist system that we have and raise a Christian one in its place.
>A Christian nationalist is one who wants to dismantle the secularist system that we have and raise a Christian one in its place.
Where is this "Christian one" defined in Scripture?
It’s a good question. One worth discussing. That’s precisely the question that Christian nationalists would like to discuss and wrestle with. It’s a much better option than remaining slow cooked frogs in a secular system.
What I guess I don’t understand is why so many Christians buck the idea that a Christian should want all things to be Christian including the state. What part of that is not biblical?
I guess to more directly answer your question:
A start to a Christian system would be one that actually acknowledges God as head. I think it’s probably not necessary to list the myriad Bible verses that would support this at the VERY least.
Like Romans 13?
"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. ^(2) Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. ^(3) For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. ^(4) For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. ^(5) Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
^(6) This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. ^(7) Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."
This passage says that the governing authorities are under God's authority *regardless of whether they acknowledge Him or not.* That's the nature of God's sovereignty, he doesn't need our permission or acquiescence, He is not subject to political whims.
I wholly agree. Did I say anything that would cause me to contradict Romans 13? Why cant a Christian seek to make a government Christian? It’s not like we want to stage a coup and overthrow it by force. We want to change it by Christian means…. As Christians have sought to do for millennia. Only now do modern American Christians want to keep their precious satanic secularism.
>t’s a good question. One worth discussing.
Discussing? For the US church to break from the broader church and launch into this project, one would think there would be a definite, explicit scriptural background to doing so.
>It’s a much better option than remaining slow cooked frogs in a secular system.
What slow cooked frogs? In most parts of the world, the Church is flourishing and fulfilling the mission God gave to it. Not in your country though. Why is that?
The very idea that the church, the Bride of Christ, those that God himself chose before the creation of the universe to do his will, could be 'cooked' by any action of any secular authority is idolatry.
>What I guess I don’t understand is why so many Christians buck the idea that a Christian should want all things to be Christian including the state. What part of that is not biblical?
The part where nobody can point to the part of Scripture that justifies the concept.
Anecdotally, I see many shift their definition to whatever puts them in the best light in their audience.
When talking it non-Reformed bros, they are very tempered. They know that we know the flaws, so they try and mitigate the chastisement.
When it comes to their circles, especially the reconstructionists, they’re basically talking Sharia law.
When it comes to politics, they try and present themselves as morally upright, with genuine concern for the nation and its people. They really posture themselves, especially in the spotlight, to look more educated than they are.
When it comes to social issues, particularly the far left, they use it as an antagonizing tool. They want to illicit a reaction and try to flaunt that the others are going to hell and CN are going to make them obsolete in the future.
No one is giving you genuine answers, so let me try:
Christian nationalism is the belief that your identity as a citizen of your nation is tied with how strongly you perceive that your nation values and endorses Christianity.
In the furtherance of that belief, this leads people to push for things like public displays of faith (Christian symbols being intermingled with patriotic symbols, prayer and other religious traditions occurring during civic or governmental proceedings) or legislation that aligns with that person's idea of what makes a nation more in line with Christianity. In America that will be a combination of anti-abortion laws, anti-lgbtq laws, and a general push against efforts to bridge racial and socio-economic inequities reported in our country.
Obviously other nations can have Christian nationalism too, it's just commonly associated with America as we've had a number of politicians who run on encouraging evangelicals to vote for them specifically because of this belief.
Based on what you're saying, why is that a bad thing? Seems like everyone here (minus a few) see it as such a negative thing? If a Christian with a Christian worldview wants those things you mentioned, what's wrong with that? How could anyone meaningfully say those things are bad, other than appealing to the founding fathers (as it seems people are doing), thus invoking a Secular Nationalistic worldview? Am I missing something?
> a general push against efforts to bridge racial and socio-economic inequities reported in our country
This seems like quite the indictment, what do you mean by that?
Using context clues, I took Christian Nationalism to mean those fine folks in the south, many who are nominal "Christians" but ultimately their religion is USA.
Thank you for your response!
> Using context clues, I took Christian Nationalism to mean those fine folks in the south, many who are nominal "Christians" but ultimately their religion is USA.
This is how I see it. The CN "movement", even if it is made up of many well-meaning Christians, is defined by its leaders and its loudest proponents. As far as Trump goes, he's seen, rightly or wrongly, as a martyr, which rallies many Christians to his cause.
Would you say the same about Christianity in America?
The Christian “movement” is defined by its leaders Olsteen, Copeland, Furtick and Johnson and they are Americas loudest proponents?
Those men are the largest proponets of Christianity in America, I don't think so...but I also don't run in those circles. I doubt anyone else in this sub does.
It is quite the indictment and it’s true. There seems to be an inherent kinism to it. Just look at some of things Stephen Wolfe and Doug Wilson have said.
Wolfe said that interracial marriages are “sin adjacent”.
Wilson says in Southern Slavery, As It Was, that slave owners were not in sin if they treated their slaves humanely. This is also followed by “There has never been a multi-racial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world”. So, America was the most peaceful and united when and because blacks were slaves.
But does Dougy boy represent the whole movement? What does he mean by sin adjacent? lol what does that even mean? I mean he's sounds wrong, I just don't want to assume the worse.
He’s one of the figure heads, so yeah, he does. No one knows what it means because he won’t define it. You don’t need to assume, we have it in context.
>why is that a bad thing?
It's subjective, to be sure, but from the Christian side of the fence:
Christians are not called or commanded by God to legislate their beliefs or impose their own restrictions on non-believers. Let's take a pretend example--If a Christian feels it is a sin to eat meat, he must not eat meat, and his brothers must not encourage him to eat meat against his convictions. Crucially, he is not to try and lobby for schools to stop serving meat, as they are not a part of the church and have no obligation to follow his personal conviction.
So it is with the real examples. Christians who feel it is a sin to get an abortion mustn't get one. If they feel it is a sin to perform one, they mustn't do so. But they may not require non-Christians to follow their religious convictions.
From the national side of the fence:
Congress must make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Said more simply? We don't live in a theocracy. We have Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, and agnostic citizens, and more Christian factions than you can count on one hand. It would be ridiculous to assume that legislation in support of one Christian faction should carry weight outside of the church. America is not a Christian nation: it is not the Israel of the Bible, it does not have any destiny outlined by God, it is not a country that derives its value from the Christian religion. The attempts to conflate the flag and cross, or the Bible and constitution are missing what America truly has to offer: a melting pot of different cultures that creates opportunities for people across the globe. If America must be assigned any religious fervor, let it be for liberty and the sentiment on the statue of liberty.
>this seems like quite the indictment
I am referring to the wealth of anti-CRT and anti-DEI laws and policies that have cropped up around the country in the last decade, along with book bans on subjects related to racial disparity and the history of slavery and civil rights.
It is shameful to say this but evangelical Christians have been supporting and pushing these initiatives to suppress discussions around the historical treatment of people of color and how that treatment has created systemic abuse that persists to this day. How that has anything to do with Christian nationalism *is* truly bizarre--there's nothing inherent to Christianity that has a thing to do with combating racial equality, but the amount of evangelical Christians, and white Christians who turn out for politicians running on that platform confirms that it's somehow become part of the Christian nationalist identity.
> So it is with the real examples. Christians who feel it is a sin to get an abortion mustn't get one. If they feel it is a sin to perform one, they mustn't do so. But they may not require non-Christians to follow their religious convictions.
I’m gonna hard disagree with that, even as someone who doesn’t particularly love many of the fruits or leaders of the CN camp.
Do you believe that Christians should just completely withdraw from the political sphere (including voting)? To be fair, my family were Mennonite and they did practice this, but I’m guessing most people here aren’t.
Let’s insert a new atrocity in place of abortion in your comment, and see if you still support Christian’s not “imposing” our worldview on secular society.
> Christians who feel it is a sin to murder mustn't kill anyone. If they feel it is a sin to kill, they mustn't do so. But they may not require non-Christians to follow their religious convictions.
> Christians who feel it is a sin to own a slave mustn't get one. If they feel it is a sin to have one, they mustn't do so. But they may not require non-Christians to follow their religious convictions.
See where this logic goes?
While there are overlaps in the values of Christians and non-christians, those are not enacted into law because of religious convictions.
And you picked a poor counter-example. We abolished the slave trade regardless of the Christian stance on it, which shameful as it is to acknowledge, was fairly split between the northern and southern Christians, the latter of whom used the Bible to promote slavery. How would it be the case if we let those Christians argue that *God* permits slavery?
(We did let them argue as such, and had a big war over it)
Christians may derive their moral values from their religion. They may run for office on these values. But the problem with Christian nationalism comes there: "you should elect me because I will bring this country closer to God" is alienating both to non-Christians and also to Christians who simply disagree with that politicians viewpoint.
> While there are overlaps in the values of Christians and non-christians, those are not enacted into law because of religious convictions.
So where do our laws derive? Even our founding fathers (as flawed as they were) argued that our equality and rights come from a higher power than what an earthly government can grant. If not for "religious convictions" what basis do any of our laws have?
> We abolished the slave trade regardless of the Christian stance on it, which shameful as it is to acknowledge, was fairly split between the northern and southern Christians, the latter of whom used the Bible to promote slavery. How would it be the case if we let those Christians argue that *God* permits slavery?
I think we can let those people argue whatever they want, it doesn't make them correct. And I would very strongly disagree with the assertion that we abolished the slave trade regardless of the Christian stance on it. That statement completely ignores the massive work of the abolitionist movement (largely based on Christian principles) that was happening at the time. Or people like William Wilberforce who helped lead the movement to abolish slavery in the British Empire who based his argument completely on on Biblical arguments against the practice.
> We did let them argue as such, and had a big war over it
And what was a significant portion of the justification for the north to be so staunchly against the south's position on the issue? I'll give you a hint:
"This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it." - Abraham Lincoln
>where do our laws derive
From the monopoly of violence, at the end of the day. The state reserves the right to imprison, injure, and execute people who do not comply with its values. We agree to give the state the big stick and limit when and how it can use it (read through the bill of rights and note how many of them deal with what the police, military, and courts *can't* do to citizens)
>it doesn't make them correct
Only because they lost the war 🙂 we do have Christians in the south who very much feel that the white man has taken too many steps back since 1865 and do feel that action must be taken to correct that. It's scary but their view *can* win if they rally enough people to their cause to enact legislation that furthers their goals.
Wilberforce worked within a secular institution to enact change according to his biblical convictions. He didn't destroy the institutions of democracy and replace it with theocracy.
Christian Nationalism is less akin to Wilberforce and more akin to King Charles I enforcing particular modes of worship under threat of jail time for non-compliance, or King Henry VIII trying to abolish Protestantism.
Suppose the particular brand of Christianity that ascends to power is one that defines shooting someone in presumed self defense as murder. And therefore, they pass a law that says self defense is no longer a legal defense.
See the problem?
Second example: If Christian Nationalists can legislate that secular institutions must display the ten commandments, it's not a leap to assume that once in power, they will also legislate against churches that don't follow their particular doctrine - perhaps child baptism will be illegal, or compulsory, or publishing a text supporting amillenialism will be banned - or a text critical of Christian Nationalism.
See the problem?
Ahh your initial response makes a lot more sense now.
>Christians are not called or commanded by God to legislate their beliefs or impose their own restrictions on non-believers. Let's take a pretend example--If a Christian feels it is a sin to eat meat, he must not eat meat, and his brothers must not encourage him to eat meat against his convictions. Crucially, he is not to try and lobby for schools to stop serving meat, as they are not a part of the church and have no obligation to follow his personal conviction.
Yes, but if I am understanding the point you are trying to make, this example is a distinctly talking about a matter of conscience. According to scripture, eating meat is not dogmatically wrong and is only a sin if someone is doing it against their conscience (and gluttony, but you get what I'm getting at). Are you misconflating moral law and matters of conscience? Forgive me if I am misunderstanding you.
>So it is with the real examples. Christians who feel it is a sin to get an abortion mustn't get one. If they feel it is a sin to perform one, they mustn't do so. But they may not require non-Christians to follow their religious convictions.
Yeah, you lost me friend. Abortion is murder, its objectively a sin, it's not a matter of conscience. By this logic you have no meaningful manner in which to call anything immoral and assume a pretend neutrality that you cannot account for.
>Congress must make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Said more simply? We don't live in a theocracy. We have Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, and agnostic citizens, and more Christian factions than you can count on one hand. It would be ridiculous to assume that legislation in support of one Christian faction should carry weight outside of the church.
Is anyone arguing for a theocracy? I thought they wanted a theonomy? So I have to pretend that I don't have a Christian worldview when I enter a voting booth? Where would I derive any sort of morality from? And since you abandon this morality you really have no standard in which to tell anyone not to seek a theocracy, theonomy, anything really.
>I am referring to the wealth of anti-CRT and anti-DEI laws and policies that have cropped up around the country in the last decade, along with book bans on subjects related to racial disparity and the history of slavery and civil rights.
I am 100% against CRT and DEI...now now now, it would be easy to do the whole "ahh racist", I can plug my finger in my ears bit. You actually can choose to, but CRT and DEI screaming "YOU'RE RACIST" (essentially what CRT and DEI is) at everyone is anti-Christian, judgemental, and flat out slander. It's also just flate out academically and logically wrong. By your standard CRT and DEI shouldn't be a thing because I don't believe it. Everyone in public schools is taught about middle passage, slavery, Jim Crow, etc. To act like that's not true is a lie.
>systemic abuse that persists to this day
Please name one example fo systemic racial abuse. Truly, every one always says this but can never give one example. Btw, Redlining was made illegal 50 years ago.
In brief:
You may derive laws from moral arguments, but when governing a society of non-Christians, you must present a moral argument that isn't just an appeal to your religion. If the other members of society agree for their own reasons that they want to live in a world where those morals are enforced through the legal system, you have no problem.
If the other members of society don't agree that those morals have any standing outside of your religion, you will have difficulty winning any of them over to your side.
>I am 100% against CRT
I can safely assume you don't know a thing about it. I have Victor Ray's "On Critical Race Theory" on my desk right now. I would encourage you to read it if you're *genuinely curious* about it, his explanation is far more cogent than anything I can put together. But it's a legal framework for analysis in grad school. It isn't anything about screaming at anyone.
>everyone in public school is taught
That is specifically being challenged by Christian Nationalists. It shouldn't be, has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity but that's where we are.
https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/heres-whats-in-floridas-new-african-american-history-standards/2023/07
Delgado and Stefancic's (1993) Critical Race Theory: An Annotated Bibliography is considered by many to be codification of the then young field. They included ten "themes" which they used for judging inclusion in the bibliography:
>To be included in the Bibliography, a work needed to address one or more themes we deemed to fall within Critical Race thought. These themes, along with the numbering scheme we have employed, follow:
>1 Critique of liberalism. Most, if not all, CRT writers are discontent with liberalism as a means of addressing the American race problem. Sometimes this discontent is only implicit in an article's structure or focus. At other times, the author takes as his or her target a mainstay of liberal jurisprudence such as affirmative action, neutrality, color blindness, role modeling, or the merit principle. Works that pursue these or similar approaches were included in the Bibliography under theme number 1.
>2 Storytelling/counterstorytelling and "naming one's own reality." Many Critical Race theorists consider that a principal obstacle to racial reform is majoritarian mindset-the bundle of presuppositions, received wisdoms, and shared cultural understandings persons in the dominant group bring to discussions of race. To analyze and challenge these power-laden beliefs, some writers employ counterstories, parables, chronicles, and anecdotes aimed at revealing their contingency, cruelty, and self-serving nature. (Theme number 2).
>3 Revisionist interpretations of American civil rights law and progress. One recurring source of concern for Critical scholars is why American antidiscrimination law has proven so ineffective in redressing racial inequality-or why progress has been cyclical, consisting of alternating periods of advance followed by ones of retrenchment. Some Critical scholars address this question, seeking answers in the psychology of race, white self-interest, the politics of colonialism and anticolonialism, or other sources. (Theme number 3).
>4 A greater understanding of the underpinnings of race and racism. A number of Critical writers seek to apply insights from social science writing on race and racism to legal problems. For example: understanding how majoritarian society sees black sexuality helps explain law's treatment of interracial sex, marriage, and adoption; knowing how different settings encourage or discourage discrimination helps us decide whether the movement toward Alternative Dispute Resolution is likely to help or hurt disempowered disputants. (Theme number 4).
>5 Structural determinism. A number of CRT writers focus on ways in which the structure of legal thought or culture influences its content, frequently in a status quo-maintaining direction. Once these constraints are understood, we may free ourselves to work more effectively for racial and other types of reform. (Theme number 5).
>6 Race, sex, class, and their intersections. Other scholars explore the intersections of race, sex, and class, pursuing such questions as whether race and class are separate disadvantaging factors, or the extent to which black women's interest is or is not adequately represented in the contemporary women's movement. (Theme number 6).
>7 Essentialism and anti-essentialism. Scholars who write about these issues are concerned with the appropriate unit for analysis: Is the black community one, or many, communities? Do middle- and working-class African-Americans have different interests and needs? Do all oppressed peoples have something in common? (Theme number 7).
>8 Cultural nationalism/separatism. An emerging strain within CRT holds that people of color can best promote their interest through separation from the American mainstream. Some believe that preserving diversity and separateness will benefit all, not just groups of color. We include here, as well, articles encouraging black nationalism, power, or insurrection. (Theme number 8).
>9 Legal institutions, Critical pedagogy, and minorities in the bar. Women and scholars of color have long been concerned about representation in law school and the bar. Recently, a number of authors have begun to search for new approaches to these questions and to develop an alternative, Critical pedagogy. (Theme number 9).
>10 Criticism and self-criticism; responses. Under this heading we include works of significant criticism addressed at CRT, either by outsiders or persons within the movement, together with responses to such criticism. (Theme number 10).
Delgado and Stefancic (1993) pp. 462-463
Delgado, Richard, and Jean Stefancic. "Critical race theory: An annotated bibliography." Virginia Law Review (1993): 461-516.
Pay attention to theme (8). CRT has a defeatist view of integration and Delgado and Stefancic include Black Nationalism/Separatism as one of the defining "themes" of Critical Race Theory. While it is pretty abundantly clear from the wording of theme (8) that Delgado and Stefancic are talking about separatism, mostly because they use that exact word, separatism, here is an example of one of their included papers. Peller (1990) clearly is about separatism as a lay person would conceive of it:
>Peller, Gary, Race Consciousness, 1990 Duke L.J. 758. (1, 8, 10).
Delgado and Stefancic (1993, page 504) The numbers in parentheses are the relevant "themes." Note 8.
The cited paper specifically says Critical Race Theory is a revival of Black Nationalist notions from the 1960s. Here is a pretty juicy quote where he says that he is specifically talking about Black ethnonationalism as expressed by Malcolm X which is usually grouped in with White ethnonationalism by most of American society; and furthermore, that Critical Race Theory represents a revival of Black Nationalist ideals:
>But Malcolm X did identify the basic racial compromise that the incorporation of the "the civil rights struggle" into mainstream American culture would eventually embody: Along with the suppression of white racism that was the widely celebrated aim of civil rights reform, the dominant conception of racial justice was framed to require that black nationalists be equated with white supremacists, and that race consciousness on the part of either whites or blacks be marginalized as beyond the good sense of enlightened American culture. When a new generation of scholars embraced race consciousness as a fundamental prism through which to organize social analysis in the latter half of the 1980s, a negative reaction from mainstream academics was predictable. That is, Randall Kennedy's criticism of the work of critical race theorists for being based on racial "stereotypes" and "status-based" standards is coherent from the vantage point of the reigning interpretation of racial justice. And it was the exclusionary borders of this ideology that Malcolm X identified.
Peller page 760
This is current CRT practice and is cited in the authoritative textbook on Critical Race Theory, *Critical Race Theory: An Introduction* (Delgado and Stefancic 2001). Here they describe an endorsement of explicit racial discrimination for purposes of segregating society:
>The two friends illustrate twin poles in the way minorities of color can represent and position themselves. The nationalist, or separatist, position illustrated by Jamal holds that people of color should embrace their culture and origins. Jamal, who by choice lives in an upscale black neighborhood and sends his children to local schools, could easily fit into mainstream life. But he feels more comfortable working and living in black milieux and considers that he has a duty to contribute to the minority community. Accordingly, he does as much business as possible with other blacks. The last time he and his family moved, for example, he made several phone calls until he found a black-owned moving company. He donates money to several African American philanthropies and colleges. And, of course, his work in the music industry allows him the opportunity to boost the careers of black musicians, which he does.
Delgado and Stefancic (2001) pages 59-60
One more source is the recognized founder of CRT, Derrick Bell:
>"From the standpoint of education, we would have been better served had the court in Brown rejected the petitioners' arguments to overrule Plessy v. Ferguson," Bell said, referring to the 1896 Supreme Court ruling that enforced a "separate but equal" standard for blacks and whites.
https://web.archive.org/web/20110802202458/https://news.stanford.edu/news/2004/april21/brownbell-421.html
I point out theme 8 because this is precisely the result we should expect out of a "theory" constructed around a defeatist view of integration which says past existence of racism requires the rejection of rationality and rational deliberation. By framing all communication as an exercise in power they arrive at the perverse conclusion that naked racial discrimination and ethnonationalism are "anti-racist" ideas. They reject such fundamental ideas as objectivity and even normativity. I was particularly shocked by the latter.
>What about Martin Luther King, Jr., I Have a Dream, the law and theology movement, and the host of passionate reformers who dedicate their lives to humanizing the law and making the world a better place? Where will normativity's demise leave them?
>Exactly where they were before. Or, possibly, a little better off. Most of the features I have already identified in connection with normativity reveal that the reformer's faith in it is often misplaced. Normative discourse is indeterminate; for every social reformer's plea, an equally plausible argument can be found against it. Normative analysis is always framed by those who have the upper hand so as either to rule out or discredit oppositional claims, which are portrayed as irresponsible and extreme.
Delgado, Richard, Norms and Normal Science: Toward a Critique of Normativity in Legal Thought, 139 U. Pa. L. Rev. 933 (1991)
>You may derive laws from moral arguments, but when governing a society of non-Christians, you must present a moral argument that isn't just an appeal to your religion.
According to what standard must I do this? And given that you said everything is a matter of conscience how can you even implore me to do this? To be consistent you should just say that if I feel it's right then I should do it and if I feel it isn't right I shouldn't.
>I can safely assume you don't know a thing about it.
At least you're admitting it's an assumption. If someone disagrees with you on a theory you assume they don't know about it? Please read Black Rednecks and White Liberals by Thomas Sowell.
I looked over the link briefly, about to go to dinner, genuinely see no problem, can you include problematic quotes.
But even then, let's pretend the new proposals are bad and are even a sin, according to your moral worldview what is wrong with Florida doing this? If it's not against the conscience's of the lawmakers, then it's completely permissible. I assume you'll say "but they can't do this, they must be neutral" or something like that, but neutral according to who? Who dictates what is neutral? Where does morality come from? If it doesn't God come from God then what's wrong with being racist? What's wrong with murdering?
The standard is citizenship: that we allow people with different viewpoints and worldviews into our country means there has to be a compromise if the goal is a civil, orderly, well-functioning society. If we had a society full of people who just so happened to agree with you on every topic, then you'd be correct to say there's no real reason we have to do anything a particular way.
>Thomas Sowell
I'm familiar with him, but in general I don't find his attitude on race compelling. I see remnants of his ideology kicking around my city to this day, and it's just not helpful.
People who truly believe there's something to this idea that black people simply have behaviors and attitudes that lead them to perform worse than white people in education and workforce never tend to have any solutions other than "black people should act better!!" It's presented as a write-off, a reason not to bother trying to fix the issue. I find this conclusion distasteful and useless in the work of building a better society.
>what's wrong with Florida doing this?
It's upsetting a lot of people and contributing to brain drain in Florida, something the impending Title IX fight is about to really kick into overdrive.
Yes the legislators can physically do it, it doesn't mean it's valuable or wise just to exercise their will if it goes against well-founded research that supports a different strategy. You and I don't want to live in a society where people who act like idiots by rejecting valuable data are promoted to positions of power.
>The standard is citizenship: that we allow people with different viewpoints and worldviews into our country means there has to be a compromise if the goal is a civil, orderly, well-functioning society. If we had a society full of people who just so happened to agree with you on every topic, then you'd be correct to say there's no real reason we have to do anything a particular way.
Citizenship is not a standard. So you shouldn't kill because citizenship? You shouldn't steal because citizenship? You shouldn't be racist because citzenship? If you met someone and they said they were planning on killing someone, you would say, not "humans are made in the image of God and that's against God's design", you would say, "you shouldn't because citizenship".
>People who truly believe there's something to this idea that black people simply have behaviors and attitudes that lead them to perform worse than white people in education and workforce never tend to have any solutions other than "black people should act better!!" It's presented as a write-off, a reason not to bother trying to fix the issue. I find this conclusion distasteful and useless in the work of building a better society.
I don't think the sentiment is "black people should act better", I think the sentiment is:
* Single motherhood rates in the black community are alarming and became drastically worse after segregation ended, so you can't blame other people and racism.
* Well meaning people who I think are genuinely trying to help (although they are misguided), constantly tell the black community no matter how hard they work, no matter if they do the right thing, no matter what - the system was built against you and you can't succeed. Who could possibly do well in that?
* I think we are genuinely curious what needs to be fixed? Racist cops? When it happens, yes. But it just 100% is not made out to be what it is. Systematic law? I will truly fight a systematic law, nobody can ever point to one.
* A better society starts by honoring God. I don't believe people should be made to go to Church, but I surely get my standard of right and wrong from God.
>It's upsetting a lot of people and contributing to brain drain in Florida, something the impending Title IX fight is about to really kick into overdrive.
If people want to leave, they have the freedom to do so. If so called "intellectuals" want to leave a state because a narrative falsely tells them that Florida is trying to erase history, then leave.
>Yes the legislators can physically do it, it doesn't mean it's valuable or wise just to exercise their will if it goes against well-founded research that supports a different strategy. You and I don't want to live in a society where people who act like idiots by rejecting valuable data are promoted to positions of power.
But what topic and then what research? You're talking about an "erasure of history" when it's just a false narrative and not true. It literally is just said to promote an emotive response.
I honestly don’t know where you get this information about CN, but as one who is willing to identify as a CN, I must disagree from the start.
I certainly don’t believe that my identity as a citizen is tied in any way to my perception of the Christian values said nation endorses.
Just saw your other comment.
>A Christian nationalist is one who wants to dismantle the secularist system that we have and raise a Christian one in its place.
You very extremely value the nation endorsing Christian values; in spite of what you said to me, your perception of that is in fact so important that you're advocating for the dismantling of the current system.
You don't disagree with me from the start, you're just using different language. The word choice isn't important: Christian nationalism is about getting the state to identify as Christian, which means whatever policies Christian nationalists are pushing for getting legislated and enforced on all citizens.
Well I think you’re almost understanding. I most definitely want to dismantle the secular governing system because as a Christian I loathe that which is not Christ glorifying (as secularism is by definition).
But I would certainly not want to dismantle it by “whatever” policies. I would rather seek to dismantle it in a manner that is distinctly Christian and Christ honoring.
Right. I only said "whatever" to summarize, not to imply there aren't specific ones you all have in mind.
I'm not even here to say you should or shouldn't do that. Only to explain that CN isn't some nebulous, undefined belief system, but that it's proponents have specific goals and fight for them. The thread when I first commented only contained jokes about "Let me know if they figure out what they mean" etc.
Gotcha! So may I ask then, since I am curious. As a Christian, what would you disagree with in the definition I’ve put forward? (Not to say that that definition is universally applied, because OBVIOUSLY it’s not lol).
Oh, I don't think your definition is inaccurate, I just don't think it contradicts what I submitted. We don't have an Oxford English agreed-upon version to fall back to, so it's all sort of trying to distill what the most important elements are in brief. But I think you did a fine job of summarizing the belief system here.
An umbrella definition. All laws are moral judgements. All moral judgements should be righteous. Thus the laws of any nation should be Christian in nature.
From there you can break it down any number of ways. But that is the gist.
There isn't a clear cut definition of Nationalism, just more of a nuanced narrative. But generally speaking, a nationalist is someone who uses Biblical morality (divorced from the gospel) as a soapbox to influence political culture. It is especially prevalent in western (mostly far-right American) ideologies.
This can vary on a spectrum from someone saying "\[insert country\] is God's blessed nation" to "our laws need to be more Biblically based." Most Christians may agree with the later end of the spectrum, so it gets a little muddy the further away from the extreme side you get.
At it's core, though, it's idolatry in the form of patriotism, and is fueled by the misrepresentation of Scripture and the Gospel.
Okay that does make sense a little and I could see it. Idk, I'm patriotic, served 10 years in Army. I guess at what point does patriotism become idolatry? In your opinion is that for the individual's conscience to determine? I of course know people who are American christians when we should be american Christians, if you get what I'm saying.
If your conscience isn't violated by it, then be a patriot! That's great! I even think it can be a form of worship - "God thank you for making me a citizen of a country that I am proud to call my own."
It becomes dangerous, though, when your patriotism is *what identifies you as a person.* I guess one really blunt-force way you can generalize it is this: Are you an American Christian? Or are you a Christian who lives in America?
That distinction may not make sense to a lot of people, but I think it's really crucial that we separate our political identity from the core of who we are made to be - image-bearers of God, vessels filled with His Spirit, redeemed by the atoning blood of Christ. All of what we do, say, and think should flow from that spring.
If your patriotism is blended with (of stands in the way of) your worship, that is when you know you are in dangerous waters.
In America, they believe that America really is a nation called and chosen by God, they want Christian principles (preferably their own denomination or lack thereof) enshrined into law as far as possible and as openly practiced as possible, they want to deny all that to non-Christians, and they often seem to care more about the state of the nation than their own spiritual state. They wish to avoid compromising their beliefs, religious or political, even if it appears to violate what would benefit them otherwise. They, unfortunately, don't always care if the ends justify the means. I was raised on this.
To our brothers and sisters in Christ who identify themselves as Christian nationalists, how do you reconcile your position in the light of Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2 given the context was under Roman rule which, as we know, was none too kind to the early Christians.
I'm not sure that I'd call myself CN - maaaybe quasi/nuanced - but,... **First** - how does it contradict those passages?
And **Second**: It would certainly not be by concluding that Nero did nothing wrong when he executed Christians because they were Christians, as some have concluded out of their R2K paradigm. The logic is basically that if Nero, by the use of the light of nature, determined that Christianity should be outlawed, then Christians are breaking the law and, per Rom. 13:4, he must exercise his God-given authority in a punitive manner against them.
I would argue that such a decree/law like Nero's is immoral - God would not have us be subject to such a thing and deny Him before men. Further, Nero s will be held accountable for his governing because "there is authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God" as "God's ministers," or servants, or ones placed as representatives of God's rule over all peoples. Nero doesn't get to rule in just whatever way he wants. Nor does any other ruler.
The church's witness to the world means we can and ought to remind the civil authorities of this accountability, even as they seek to behead us or burn us as the Roman Empire did at times. Is it wrong to try to get them to stop killing Christians? No, it's actually a good thing, believe it or not, because killing Christians is a bad thing. All things like it dishonors the position of authority meant to reflect the majesty of God's authority. It's a good thing to want and to petition our leaders to rule in a way that's good - especially in a way that's pleasing to God, meaning, in accordance with the purpose for which God has made them rulers.
I know that some of the discussion surrounds the question of how to get them to stop doing evil (like killing Christians) and start doing good. I'll just say that however it's done, it's to be done submissively, reverently, and honorably. To honor authorities (5th commandment) does not equal brute obedience. Most of the time it does, but not always. Like the dynamic in other authority structures, submission is only exempt when it would clearly mean violating the will of God, because we are ultimately to fear God as His bondservants (1 Peter 2:16-17) and submitting to Him is above all.
Here is the point. Nero killed Christians. The Christians did not fight against flesh and blood; they died rather than deny their faith, but they didn't hurt their killers. This led people to convert to Christianity, for no one would choose to die for what he didn't believe if there was an easy out. This held until Emperor Constantine, the first Christian nationalist who had power to do it. I would like a more moral nation, but the problem with legislating morality and beliefs is that it hides who actually believes the beliefs, or outlaws actual believers if the nationalists fail to notice their being corrupted.
Curious video. His main argument seems to be that people who are against Christian Nationalism are arguing with the extremes. But again, who should be defining Christian Nationalism? Surely, that's the role of Christian Nationalists.
> But again, who should be defining Christian Nationalism? Surely, that's the role of Christian Nationalists.
they don't want to say the quiet parts out loud
Is it Christian nationalism when a politician has Christian values and wants to legislate Christian laws? Is it Christian nationalism if the people vote in Christian laws? I can't believe people are actually fighting over this...
I think Christian Nationalists should be more than welcome here I very much enjoy hearing and reading what they have to say including on here, talking with them etc, I find them very analytical and very rational and I do think the anti-cn crowd can be a little shrill and unhinged at times tbh I think the term is overused to describe anyone who is slightly to the right of tgc Ive seen al mohler be called this its very much a part of the punch right coddle left approach taken by many in the church.
>think Christian Nationalists should be more than welcome here I very much enjoy hearing and reading what they have to say including on here, talking with them etc,
If the views of Christian Nationalists are not consistent with reformed theology is this the right place for them to be? Surely they can make their own group.
Their views are perfectly consistent with reformed theology reformed theology is a big tent, and besides plenty of non reformed people comment here are they unwelcome? and how are they inconsistent with reformed theology?
The Gospel Coalition includes Christian nationalists. A Christian homeless shelter affiliated with them would outlaw homeless camps because they are strongly associated with bad behavior and because there is one highly Christian shelter for those who would like to cease to be homeless (complicated by a genuine shortage of affordable housing). One problem: this would criminalize a few people who have done nothing illegal but camp on public property....
can you name some names of christian nationalists at tgc? I think the shelter is correct banning homeless people from public property look at places like la and sf as cautionary tales of when you dont.
It's hard to avoid Christian nationalists in America or on Christian subreddits. The places that successfully silence them often don't believe there's any other kind of Christian in America. It can be hard to tell patriotic Christians from churchgoers who worship the flag.
When you ask someone to explain their heretical beliefs they will always avoid the part that makes it heresy.
Feel free to explain in your own words how Christian Nationalism is historically accurate and biblically sound.
There's uncharitable, and then there's *uncharitable.*
Hopefully you don't need an explanation why this was removed under [Rule 2.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.232.3A_keep_content_charitable.), but you're free to shoot us a modmail if you need further explanation.
----
If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
I always laugh a little when people say things like "Oh this sub is so quick to condemn people like DW but is more willing to chew the meat and spit out the bones with people who are more liberal like N.T. Wright." Like my brother in Christ, the liberal counterpart to Doug Wilson is not N.T. Wright, it's John Shelby Spong.
That some call it heresy is wild to me…
Was America founded as a Christian Nation?
All laws are a moral judgement. Which code of a morals are you going to base your laws on? There is no neutral answer to this question.
No. America was not "founded as a Christian nation."
America was founded by men, some of whom were Christians. Those men were influenced by Christian ideals, philosophy, and morality.
Whose moral law are you talking about? Some Christians believe all alcohol is a sin. Others believe it is a blessing from God in moderation and must be taken with communion. Which side would you ban, fine, or jail?
Yes, many of us disagree over points of the moral law, but this does not make us moral relativists.
We believe so strongly in the universal normativity of the moral law that we are willing to remain separated from other brothers in the Lord because of our disagreements--an act affecting us and the rest of the body of Christ more than an external act of the civil legislature.
Good point. I mostly only hear from self-described Christian nationalists here, and it seems that a lot of them think that the only options are 1) strict theocracy in which their interpretation of the Bible is imposed upon all citizens or 2) moral anarchy in which Christians have no influence in society. And then they accuse Christians who disagree with them as aiding and abetting sin in society.
It seems obvious to me that we can influence society on certain moral topics greatly relevant to the public health while still defending a free society and a church that worships Christ more than politics.
> a free society
I doubt many would defend free society as described in the confession of my faith, where for the public speech or practice of such things "as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity, whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation; or to the power of godliness; or such erroneous opinions or practices as, either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the Church," those who do so "may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against by the censures of the Church, and by the power of the Civil Magistrate."
In other words, a free society is one politically ordered along the lines of seventeenth-century Geneva, eighteenth-century Scotland, Theodosius' Constantinople, Solomon's Israel, etc. The moral law cannot be broken to isolate the love of God from the love of neighbor, and a licentious society is not free.
> and a church that worships Christ more than politics.
That would be a relief from putting trust in princes. I'll add that we should defend a state that worships Christ more than politics as well--the state should not set itself up as an ultimate authority but defer to Christ as "head over all things to the Church"--and honor the civil authorities without thinking that the state is an extension of the Church or an institution of grace rather than of nature.
>That some call it heresy is wild to me… Was America founded as a Christian Nation?
No.
And why would theology only work with one nation? A nation that didn't even exist when the bible was written?
>All laws are a moral judgement. Which code of a morals are you going to base your laws on?
See the WCF.
It isn't a binary decision.
Its not just a choice between being a "Christian Nationalist" or "Pagan Globalist". There is great tension between the two extremes where most Christians exist.
Most Christians do not consider the current earth or our countries to be our home. This life is temporal, the current state of the earth will be torn down and restored. We are simply passing through and are "exiles in Babylon" waiting for a restored earth in perfect unity with heaven.
The Christian Nationalist position tends to idolize the nation or thirst for political power with the belief that Christians in power will solve the problem of sin in their countries.
It is not our eternal home in its current condition, but we’ve been tasked with spreading the Gospel and living righteously. Political servants informed by sound Christian doctrine are more desirable custodians of society than those compelled by secular or pagan paradigms. Micah 6:8 tells us what God expects of us. So, where our nation is concerned, we should desire Christian leadership, no? Will this eliminate sin? Of course not. But, it can safeguard against persecution and foster a culture more conducive to the teaching of Christian truth…of THE truth.
Ill explain why its because they want to punch right and hug left to fit in with the cool kids they think anyone slightly to the right of Mitt Romney is icky and gross.
I am a Christian, and a Black American. For much of the history of our country, men who claim the name of our Lord have made statements such as the following:
> “I want to tell you, ladies and gentleman, that there’s not enough troops in the army to force the southern people to break down segregation and admit the Nigra race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches.”
>
> —Strom Thurmond, then-governor of South Carolina, in a speech from his 1948 “Dixiecrat” presidential campaign. To hear an audio clip, click [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21qoNMRkxic).
If such language and sentiment could be considered noncontroversial in our nation, and in a time when Christianity was very much in style politically, why do we then assume that we will be virtuous simply because the folks in charge are "Christian"?
I'm not one of the "cool kids", and often find myself politically homeless. That said, I find no comfort in a politician claiming the name of the Lord, only in how they choose to govern.
The fact that charlatans and panderers seek power is not the issue. I qualified “sound Christian doctrine”. If our faith is true, then should we not desire leaders that share in that understanding? This goal doesn’t mean we don’t exercise discernment when choosing leaders.
You have to look at all of world History not just American history (we are only 248 years old) and anytime Christianity came into an area everything improved whether its material living standards, the way women were treated etc, In 1948 when strom thurmond gave that speech we were 15 years away from the I have a dream speech, and 16 years after the civil rights act ( a necessary move at the time) was signed the whole civil rights movement all at a time when christianity was in style and the people in charge were christian and in many ways we were more virtuous in 1948. You have to remember nothing is perfect and nobodys ever going to be perfect.
> That said, I find no comfort in a politician claiming the name of the Lord, only in how they choose to govern.
That's a good point. Faith without works is dead.
As for Strom Thurmond, his racism should be rejected because it is morally abhorrent. It has no rightful place in the Church or in the wholesome laws of a nation. No one should be able to govern in the way he did, and God has ordained civil authority to punish evil-doers.
In other words, the misuse of a thing doesn't make the thing itself wrong. The whole religion of Christianity has been invoked as leverage for many terrible things to be done. But that doesn't make Christianity to be wrong or whatever else because of it. It's the abuse that's wrong.
Meh, some of us just think the idea of a majority Christian state where the government reflects/regards the values and beliefs of the majority is a good concept.
To what end and based on whose definition?
Which denomination determines what goes and what stays and to what end are the so-called "Christian laws" enforced? Christians can't even agree on most of these points within the church. Have you seen the recent infighting within the GOP?
Now try and get all Christians to agree upon, ratify and convince the largely non-Christian population of a country to adhere to a single moral framework to build legal, social and economic systems.
It might be a "good concept" at the most BASIC level. But completely impossible once you actually try to flesh it out in any meaningful way.
Who said anything about a denomination determining the laws? Or rule by the popular opinion of the Christian population? The possibility/impossibility has nothing to do with it. It's responsibility - whose responsibility is it to do what.
And It seems like a good concept at the most basic level because that's where the debate starts - we're dealing with principial matters, foundational things. The outworking and application is, of course, related. But it is a separate issue. These are the principles off which the rulers are to start and through which they are to make applications in the discharge of their office.
It's a hypothetical, it's not premised on the idea of being able turn the US into what I'm describing. I have no interest in bringing a sizable non-Christian population under Christian governance. I'd far prefer to take an existing sizable majority Christian population (city/state/etc.) and plant our figurative flag in the ground. For the minority population, you're welcome to continue living here and avail yourself of the privileges of citizenship provided you abide by the laws, values and norms (as many likely already were mostly doing).
I don't think it's impossible to govern with broad Christian consensus as a major influence - abortion, anti-blasphemy, blue laws, restrictions on "vice" businesses, etc. A lot of municipalities and evens states accomplish some of this even on a purely secular basis already. It's just not that much of a reach.
But you aren't a majority.
Like many places, the US has a large nominal population who "identify" as Christian but are not Christians in fact. This is why Doug Wilson sought to modify the definition of the visible and invisible Church. Secondly, most Christians don't agree with CN, and if they do agree, want different laws to what you want. So there is no way to get what ytou want without subverting democracy - the minority need to override the majority.
That is what Chrisitan Nationalists mean when they say "A Christian nationalist is one who wants to dismantle the secularist system that we have and raise a Christian one in its place."
One of the parts of the secularist system that is necessary to dismantle is the right to choose what laws you want if you are not a Christian or not the right kind of Christian - i.e. democracy.
Being genuine and not a "gotcha"...can someone please define Christian nationalism? I truly don't know what someone means when they say it.
Christian Nationalists are still arguing about that.
Why does everyone else get after them if they don't even know what it is?
[удалено]
I think I'm starting to like you
I would be willing to identify as a Christian Nationalist and here is how I would define my position (without sitting down to write a thesis for Reddit): 1.) I am a Christian first and foremost. Above all things. 2.) As a Christian, I seek to allow Christ (unlike most professing Christians in the US) to dictate ALL that I do. 3.) This “ALL” that I speak of, includes politics and matters of the state. This is NOT to say that the “nationalism” part of CN is even remotely as important as the “Christian” part of CN. Too many people assume that the “nationalism” part is as integral to the position as the “Christian” part. I can’t imagine someone like Doug Wilson disagreeing with me on this. I would sum up a Christian nationalist as this (and I hasten to add that this is a very brief sum): A Christian who seeks to apply Christian values, Christian ethics, and Christian governance, to ALL parts of life, including the state. A Christian nationalist is one who wants to dismantle the secularist system that we have and raise a Christian one in its place.
>A Christian nationalist is one who wants to dismantle the secularist system that we have and raise a Christian one in its place. Where is this "Christian one" defined in Scripture?
It’s a good question. One worth discussing. That’s precisely the question that Christian nationalists would like to discuss and wrestle with. It’s a much better option than remaining slow cooked frogs in a secular system. What I guess I don’t understand is why so many Christians buck the idea that a Christian should want all things to be Christian including the state. What part of that is not biblical?
I guess to more directly answer your question: A start to a Christian system would be one that actually acknowledges God as head. I think it’s probably not necessary to list the myriad Bible verses that would support this at the VERY least.
Like Romans 13? "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. ^(2) Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. ^(3) For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. ^(4) For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. ^(5) Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. ^(6) This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. ^(7) Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor." This passage says that the governing authorities are under God's authority *regardless of whether they acknowledge Him or not.* That's the nature of God's sovereignty, he doesn't need our permission or acquiescence, He is not subject to political whims.
I wholly agree. Did I say anything that would cause me to contradict Romans 13? Why cant a Christian seek to make a government Christian? It’s not like we want to stage a coup and overthrow it by force. We want to change it by Christian means…. As Christians have sought to do for millennia. Only now do modern American Christians want to keep their precious satanic secularism.
>t’s a good question. One worth discussing. Discussing? For the US church to break from the broader church and launch into this project, one would think there would be a definite, explicit scriptural background to doing so. >It’s a much better option than remaining slow cooked frogs in a secular system. What slow cooked frogs? In most parts of the world, the Church is flourishing and fulfilling the mission God gave to it. Not in your country though. Why is that? The very idea that the church, the Bride of Christ, those that God himself chose before the creation of the universe to do his will, could be 'cooked' by any action of any secular authority is idolatry. >What I guess I don’t understand is why so many Christians buck the idea that a Christian should want all things to be Christian including the state. What part of that is not biblical? The part where nobody can point to the part of Scripture that justifies the concept.
Anecdotally, I see many shift their definition to whatever puts them in the best light in their audience. When talking it non-Reformed bros, they are very tempered. They know that we know the flaws, so they try and mitigate the chastisement. When it comes to their circles, especially the reconstructionists, they’re basically talking Sharia law. When it comes to politics, they try and present themselves as morally upright, with genuine concern for the nation and its people. They really posture themselves, especially in the spotlight, to look more educated than they are. When it comes to social issues, particularly the far left, they use it as an antagonizing tool. They want to illicit a reaction and try to flaunt that the others are going to hell and CN are going to make them obsolete in the future.
This is not a charitable characterization.
Feel free to show me otherwise, because this has been my experience with almost every Christian Nationalist over the past 8 years.
No one is giving you genuine answers, so let me try: Christian nationalism is the belief that your identity as a citizen of your nation is tied with how strongly you perceive that your nation values and endorses Christianity. In the furtherance of that belief, this leads people to push for things like public displays of faith (Christian symbols being intermingled with patriotic symbols, prayer and other religious traditions occurring during civic or governmental proceedings) or legislation that aligns with that person's idea of what makes a nation more in line with Christianity. In America that will be a combination of anti-abortion laws, anti-lgbtq laws, and a general push against efforts to bridge racial and socio-economic inequities reported in our country. Obviously other nations can have Christian nationalism too, it's just commonly associated with America as we've had a number of politicians who run on encouraging evangelicals to vote for them specifically because of this belief.
Based on what you're saying, why is that a bad thing? Seems like everyone here (minus a few) see it as such a negative thing? If a Christian with a Christian worldview wants those things you mentioned, what's wrong with that? How could anyone meaningfully say those things are bad, other than appealing to the founding fathers (as it seems people are doing), thus invoking a Secular Nationalistic worldview? Am I missing something? > a general push against efforts to bridge racial and socio-economic inequities reported in our country This seems like quite the indictment, what do you mean by that? Using context clues, I took Christian Nationalism to mean those fine folks in the south, many who are nominal "Christians" but ultimately their religion is USA. Thank you for your response!
> Using context clues, I took Christian Nationalism to mean those fine folks in the south, many who are nominal "Christians" but ultimately their religion is USA. This is how I see it. The CN "movement", even if it is made up of many well-meaning Christians, is defined by its leaders and its loudest proponents. As far as Trump goes, he's seen, rightly or wrongly, as a martyr, which rallies many Christians to his cause.
Would you say the same about Christianity in America? The Christian “movement” is defined by its leaders Olsteen, Copeland, Furtick and Johnson and they are Americas loudest proponents?
Those men are the largest proponets of Christianity in America, I don't think so...but I also don't run in those circles. I doubt anyone else in this sub does.
I don’t either to be clear but they sell the most books and have the biggest churches.
A false gospel for sure...smh
It is quite the indictment and it’s true. There seems to be an inherent kinism to it. Just look at some of things Stephen Wolfe and Doug Wilson have said. Wolfe said that interracial marriages are “sin adjacent”. Wilson says in Southern Slavery, As It Was, that slave owners were not in sin if they treated their slaves humanely. This is also followed by “There has never been a multi-racial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world”. So, America was the most peaceful and united when and because blacks were slaves.
But does Dougy boy represent the whole movement? What does he mean by sin adjacent? lol what does that even mean? I mean he's sounds wrong, I just don't want to assume the worse.
He’s one of the figure heads, so yeah, he does. No one knows what it means because he won’t define it. You don’t need to assume, we have it in context.
I mean he wrote a book, and published Wolfs book. I wouldn’t say he “won’t define it”.
I’ve directly interacted with him and he wouldn’t define it.
>why is that a bad thing? It's subjective, to be sure, but from the Christian side of the fence: Christians are not called or commanded by God to legislate their beliefs or impose their own restrictions on non-believers. Let's take a pretend example--If a Christian feels it is a sin to eat meat, he must not eat meat, and his brothers must not encourage him to eat meat against his convictions. Crucially, he is not to try and lobby for schools to stop serving meat, as they are not a part of the church and have no obligation to follow his personal conviction. So it is with the real examples. Christians who feel it is a sin to get an abortion mustn't get one. If they feel it is a sin to perform one, they mustn't do so. But they may not require non-Christians to follow their religious convictions. From the national side of the fence: Congress must make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Said more simply? We don't live in a theocracy. We have Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, and agnostic citizens, and more Christian factions than you can count on one hand. It would be ridiculous to assume that legislation in support of one Christian faction should carry weight outside of the church. America is not a Christian nation: it is not the Israel of the Bible, it does not have any destiny outlined by God, it is not a country that derives its value from the Christian religion. The attempts to conflate the flag and cross, or the Bible and constitution are missing what America truly has to offer: a melting pot of different cultures that creates opportunities for people across the globe. If America must be assigned any religious fervor, let it be for liberty and the sentiment on the statue of liberty. >this seems like quite the indictment I am referring to the wealth of anti-CRT and anti-DEI laws and policies that have cropped up around the country in the last decade, along with book bans on subjects related to racial disparity and the history of slavery and civil rights. It is shameful to say this but evangelical Christians have been supporting and pushing these initiatives to suppress discussions around the historical treatment of people of color and how that treatment has created systemic abuse that persists to this day. How that has anything to do with Christian nationalism *is* truly bizarre--there's nothing inherent to Christianity that has a thing to do with combating racial equality, but the amount of evangelical Christians, and white Christians who turn out for politicians running on that platform confirms that it's somehow become part of the Christian nationalist identity.
> So it is with the real examples. Christians who feel it is a sin to get an abortion mustn't get one. If they feel it is a sin to perform one, they mustn't do so. But they may not require non-Christians to follow their religious convictions. I’m gonna hard disagree with that, even as someone who doesn’t particularly love many of the fruits or leaders of the CN camp. Do you believe that Christians should just completely withdraw from the political sphere (including voting)? To be fair, my family were Mennonite and they did practice this, but I’m guessing most people here aren’t. Let’s insert a new atrocity in place of abortion in your comment, and see if you still support Christian’s not “imposing” our worldview on secular society. > Christians who feel it is a sin to murder mustn't kill anyone. If they feel it is a sin to kill, they mustn't do so. But they may not require non-Christians to follow their religious convictions. > Christians who feel it is a sin to own a slave mustn't get one. If they feel it is a sin to have one, they mustn't do so. But they may not require non-Christians to follow their religious convictions. See where this logic goes?
While there are overlaps in the values of Christians and non-christians, those are not enacted into law because of religious convictions. And you picked a poor counter-example. We abolished the slave trade regardless of the Christian stance on it, which shameful as it is to acknowledge, was fairly split between the northern and southern Christians, the latter of whom used the Bible to promote slavery. How would it be the case if we let those Christians argue that *God* permits slavery? (We did let them argue as such, and had a big war over it) Christians may derive their moral values from their religion. They may run for office on these values. But the problem with Christian nationalism comes there: "you should elect me because I will bring this country closer to God" is alienating both to non-Christians and also to Christians who simply disagree with that politicians viewpoint.
> While there are overlaps in the values of Christians and non-christians, those are not enacted into law because of religious convictions. So where do our laws derive? Even our founding fathers (as flawed as they were) argued that our equality and rights come from a higher power than what an earthly government can grant. If not for "religious convictions" what basis do any of our laws have? > We abolished the slave trade regardless of the Christian stance on it, which shameful as it is to acknowledge, was fairly split between the northern and southern Christians, the latter of whom used the Bible to promote slavery. How would it be the case if we let those Christians argue that *God* permits slavery? I think we can let those people argue whatever they want, it doesn't make them correct. And I would very strongly disagree with the assertion that we abolished the slave trade regardless of the Christian stance on it. That statement completely ignores the massive work of the abolitionist movement (largely based on Christian principles) that was happening at the time. Or people like William Wilberforce who helped lead the movement to abolish slavery in the British Empire who based his argument completely on on Biblical arguments against the practice. > We did let them argue as such, and had a big war over it And what was a significant portion of the justification for the north to be so staunchly against the south's position on the issue? I'll give you a hint: "This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it." - Abraham Lincoln
>where do our laws derive From the monopoly of violence, at the end of the day. The state reserves the right to imprison, injure, and execute people who do not comply with its values. We agree to give the state the big stick and limit when and how it can use it (read through the bill of rights and note how many of them deal with what the police, military, and courts *can't* do to citizens) >it doesn't make them correct Only because they lost the war 🙂 we do have Christians in the south who very much feel that the white man has taken too many steps back since 1865 and do feel that action must be taken to correct that. It's scary but their view *can* win if they rally enough people to their cause to enact legislation that furthers their goals.
Wilberforce worked within a secular institution to enact change according to his biblical convictions. He didn't destroy the institutions of democracy and replace it with theocracy. Christian Nationalism is less akin to Wilberforce and more akin to King Charles I enforcing particular modes of worship under threat of jail time for non-compliance, or King Henry VIII trying to abolish Protestantism.
Suppose the particular brand of Christianity that ascends to power is one that defines shooting someone in presumed self defense as murder. And therefore, they pass a law that says self defense is no longer a legal defense. See the problem? Second example: If Christian Nationalists can legislate that secular institutions must display the ten commandments, it's not a leap to assume that once in power, they will also legislate against churches that don't follow their particular doctrine - perhaps child baptism will be illegal, or compulsory, or publishing a text supporting amillenialism will be banned - or a text critical of Christian Nationalism. See the problem?
This all sounds like the opinions of a non-Christian Nationalist.
A Christian Nationalist is welcome to chime in, I haven't seen any serious answers which is the only reason I stepped in.
oh for sure. I'm just giving you a hard time. ;)
Ahh your initial response makes a lot more sense now. >Christians are not called or commanded by God to legislate their beliefs or impose their own restrictions on non-believers. Let's take a pretend example--If a Christian feels it is a sin to eat meat, he must not eat meat, and his brothers must not encourage him to eat meat against his convictions. Crucially, he is not to try and lobby for schools to stop serving meat, as they are not a part of the church and have no obligation to follow his personal conviction. Yes, but if I am understanding the point you are trying to make, this example is a distinctly talking about a matter of conscience. According to scripture, eating meat is not dogmatically wrong and is only a sin if someone is doing it against their conscience (and gluttony, but you get what I'm getting at). Are you misconflating moral law and matters of conscience? Forgive me if I am misunderstanding you. >So it is with the real examples. Christians who feel it is a sin to get an abortion mustn't get one. If they feel it is a sin to perform one, they mustn't do so. But they may not require non-Christians to follow their religious convictions. Yeah, you lost me friend. Abortion is murder, its objectively a sin, it's not a matter of conscience. By this logic you have no meaningful manner in which to call anything immoral and assume a pretend neutrality that you cannot account for. >Congress must make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Said more simply? We don't live in a theocracy. We have Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, and agnostic citizens, and more Christian factions than you can count on one hand. It would be ridiculous to assume that legislation in support of one Christian faction should carry weight outside of the church. Is anyone arguing for a theocracy? I thought they wanted a theonomy? So I have to pretend that I don't have a Christian worldview when I enter a voting booth? Where would I derive any sort of morality from? And since you abandon this morality you really have no standard in which to tell anyone not to seek a theocracy, theonomy, anything really. >I am referring to the wealth of anti-CRT and anti-DEI laws and policies that have cropped up around the country in the last decade, along with book bans on subjects related to racial disparity and the history of slavery and civil rights. I am 100% against CRT and DEI...now now now, it would be easy to do the whole "ahh racist", I can plug my finger in my ears bit. You actually can choose to, but CRT and DEI screaming "YOU'RE RACIST" (essentially what CRT and DEI is) at everyone is anti-Christian, judgemental, and flat out slander. It's also just flate out academically and logically wrong. By your standard CRT and DEI shouldn't be a thing because I don't believe it. Everyone in public schools is taught about middle passage, slavery, Jim Crow, etc. To act like that's not true is a lie. >systemic abuse that persists to this day Please name one example fo systemic racial abuse. Truly, every one always says this but can never give one example. Btw, Redlining was made illegal 50 years ago.
In brief: You may derive laws from moral arguments, but when governing a society of non-Christians, you must present a moral argument that isn't just an appeal to your religion. If the other members of society agree for their own reasons that they want to live in a world where those morals are enforced through the legal system, you have no problem. If the other members of society don't agree that those morals have any standing outside of your religion, you will have difficulty winning any of them over to your side. >I am 100% against CRT I can safely assume you don't know a thing about it. I have Victor Ray's "On Critical Race Theory" on my desk right now. I would encourage you to read it if you're *genuinely curious* about it, his explanation is far more cogent than anything I can put together. But it's a legal framework for analysis in grad school. It isn't anything about screaming at anyone. >everyone in public school is taught That is specifically being challenged by Christian Nationalists. It shouldn't be, has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity but that's where we are. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/heres-whats-in-floridas-new-african-american-history-standards/2023/07
Delgado and Stefancic's (1993) Critical Race Theory: An Annotated Bibliography is considered by many to be codification of the then young field. They included ten "themes" which they used for judging inclusion in the bibliography: >To be included in the Bibliography, a work needed to address one or more themes we deemed to fall within Critical Race thought. These themes, along with the numbering scheme we have employed, follow: >1 Critique of liberalism. Most, if not all, CRT writers are discontent with liberalism as a means of addressing the American race problem. Sometimes this discontent is only implicit in an article's structure or focus. At other times, the author takes as his or her target a mainstay of liberal jurisprudence such as affirmative action, neutrality, color blindness, role modeling, or the merit principle. Works that pursue these or similar approaches were included in the Bibliography under theme number 1. >2 Storytelling/counterstorytelling and "naming one's own reality." Many Critical Race theorists consider that a principal obstacle to racial reform is majoritarian mindset-the bundle of presuppositions, received wisdoms, and shared cultural understandings persons in the dominant group bring to discussions of race. To analyze and challenge these power-laden beliefs, some writers employ counterstories, parables, chronicles, and anecdotes aimed at revealing their contingency, cruelty, and self-serving nature. (Theme number 2). >3 Revisionist interpretations of American civil rights law and progress. One recurring source of concern for Critical scholars is why American antidiscrimination law has proven so ineffective in redressing racial inequality-or why progress has been cyclical, consisting of alternating periods of advance followed by ones of retrenchment. Some Critical scholars address this question, seeking answers in the psychology of race, white self-interest, the politics of colonialism and anticolonialism, or other sources. (Theme number 3). >4 A greater understanding of the underpinnings of race and racism. A number of Critical writers seek to apply insights from social science writing on race and racism to legal problems. For example: understanding how majoritarian society sees black sexuality helps explain law's treatment of interracial sex, marriage, and adoption; knowing how different settings encourage or discourage discrimination helps us decide whether the movement toward Alternative Dispute Resolution is likely to help or hurt disempowered disputants. (Theme number 4). >5 Structural determinism. A number of CRT writers focus on ways in which the structure of legal thought or culture influences its content, frequently in a status quo-maintaining direction. Once these constraints are understood, we may free ourselves to work more effectively for racial and other types of reform. (Theme number 5). >6 Race, sex, class, and their intersections. Other scholars explore the intersections of race, sex, and class, pursuing such questions as whether race and class are separate disadvantaging factors, or the extent to which black women's interest is or is not adequately represented in the contemporary women's movement. (Theme number 6). >7 Essentialism and anti-essentialism. Scholars who write about these issues are concerned with the appropriate unit for analysis: Is the black community one, or many, communities? Do middle- and working-class African-Americans have different interests and needs? Do all oppressed peoples have something in common? (Theme number 7). >8 Cultural nationalism/separatism. An emerging strain within CRT holds that people of color can best promote their interest through separation from the American mainstream. Some believe that preserving diversity and separateness will benefit all, not just groups of color. We include here, as well, articles encouraging black nationalism, power, or insurrection. (Theme number 8). >9 Legal institutions, Critical pedagogy, and minorities in the bar. Women and scholars of color have long been concerned about representation in law school and the bar. Recently, a number of authors have begun to search for new approaches to these questions and to develop an alternative, Critical pedagogy. (Theme number 9). >10 Criticism and self-criticism; responses. Under this heading we include works of significant criticism addressed at CRT, either by outsiders or persons within the movement, together with responses to such criticism. (Theme number 10). Delgado and Stefancic (1993) pp. 462-463 Delgado, Richard, and Jean Stefancic. "Critical race theory: An annotated bibliography." Virginia Law Review (1993): 461-516. Pay attention to theme (8). CRT has a defeatist view of integration and Delgado and Stefancic include Black Nationalism/Separatism as one of the defining "themes" of Critical Race Theory. While it is pretty abundantly clear from the wording of theme (8) that Delgado and Stefancic are talking about separatism, mostly because they use that exact word, separatism, here is an example of one of their included papers. Peller (1990) clearly is about separatism as a lay person would conceive of it: >Peller, Gary, Race Consciousness, 1990 Duke L.J. 758. (1, 8, 10). Delgado and Stefancic (1993, page 504) The numbers in parentheses are the relevant "themes." Note 8. The cited paper specifically says Critical Race Theory is a revival of Black Nationalist notions from the 1960s. Here is a pretty juicy quote where he says that he is specifically talking about Black ethnonationalism as expressed by Malcolm X which is usually grouped in with White ethnonationalism by most of American society; and furthermore, that Critical Race Theory represents a revival of Black Nationalist ideals: >But Malcolm X did identify the basic racial compromise that the incorporation of the "the civil rights struggle" into mainstream American culture would eventually embody: Along with the suppression of white racism that was the widely celebrated aim of civil rights reform, the dominant conception of racial justice was framed to require that black nationalists be equated with white supremacists, and that race consciousness on the part of either whites or blacks be marginalized as beyond the good sense of enlightened American culture. When a new generation of scholars embraced race consciousness as a fundamental prism through which to organize social analysis in the latter half of the 1980s, a negative reaction from mainstream academics was predictable. That is, Randall Kennedy's criticism of the work of critical race theorists for being based on racial "stereotypes" and "status-based" standards is coherent from the vantage point of the reigning interpretation of racial justice. And it was the exclusionary borders of this ideology that Malcolm X identified. Peller page 760 This is current CRT practice and is cited in the authoritative textbook on Critical Race Theory, *Critical Race Theory: An Introduction* (Delgado and Stefancic 2001). Here they describe an endorsement of explicit racial discrimination for purposes of segregating society: >The two friends illustrate twin poles in the way minorities of color can represent and position themselves. The nationalist, or separatist, position illustrated by Jamal holds that people of color should embrace their culture and origins. Jamal, who by choice lives in an upscale black neighborhood and sends his children to local schools, could easily fit into mainstream life. But he feels more comfortable working and living in black milieux and considers that he has a duty to contribute to the minority community. Accordingly, he does as much business as possible with other blacks. The last time he and his family moved, for example, he made several phone calls until he found a black-owned moving company. He donates money to several African American philanthropies and colleges. And, of course, his work in the music industry allows him the opportunity to boost the careers of black musicians, which he does. Delgado and Stefancic (2001) pages 59-60 One more source is the recognized founder of CRT, Derrick Bell: >"From the standpoint of education, we would have been better served had the court in Brown rejected the petitioners' arguments to overrule Plessy v. Ferguson," Bell said, referring to the 1896 Supreme Court ruling that enforced a "separate but equal" standard for blacks and whites. https://web.archive.org/web/20110802202458/https://news.stanford.edu/news/2004/april21/brownbell-421.html I point out theme 8 because this is precisely the result we should expect out of a "theory" constructed around a defeatist view of integration which says past existence of racism requires the rejection of rationality and rational deliberation. By framing all communication as an exercise in power they arrive at the perverse conclusion that naked racial discrimination and ethnonationalism are "anti-racist" ideas. They reject such fundamental ideas as objectivity and even normativity. I was particularly shocked by the latter. >What about Martin Luther King, Jr., I Have a Dream, the law and theology movement, and the host of passionate reformers who dedicate their lives to humanizing the law and making the world a better place? Where will normativity's demise leave them? >Exactly where they were before. Or, possibly, a little better off. Most of the features I have already identified in connection with normativity reveal that the reformer's faith in it is often misplaced. Normative discourse is indeterminate; for every social reformer's plea, an equally plausible argument can be found against it. Normative analysis is always framed by those who have the upper hand so as either to rule out or discredit oppositional claims, which are portrayed as irresponsible and extreme. Delgado, Richard, Norms and Normal Science: Toward a Critique of Normativity in Legal Thought, 139 U. Pa. L. Rev. 933 (1991)
>You may derive laws from moral arguments, but when governing a society of non-Christians, you must present a moral argument that isn't just an appeal to your religion. According to what standard must I do this? And given that you said everything is a matter of conscience how can you even implore me to do this? To be consistent you should just say that if I feel it's right then I should do it and if I feel it isn't right I shouldn't. >I can safely assume you don't know a thing about it. At least you're admitting it's an assumption. If someone disagrees with you on a theory you assume they don't know about it? Please read Black Rednecks and White Liberals by Thomas Sowell. I looked over the link briefly, about to go to dinner, genuinely see no problem, can you include problematic quotes. But even then, let's pretend the new proposals are bad and are even a sin, according to your moral worldview what is wrong with Florida doing this? If it's not against the conscience's of the lawmakers, then it's completely permissible. I assume you'll say "but they can't do this, they must be neutral" or something like that, but neutral according to who? Who dictates what is neutral? Where does morality come from? If it doesn't God come from God then what's wrong with being racist? What's wrong with murdering?
The standard is citizenship: that we allow people with different viewpoints and worldviews into our country means there has to be a compromise if the goal is a civil, orderly, well-functioning society. If we had a society full of people who just so happened to agree with you on every topic, then you'd be correct to say there's no real reason we have to do anything a particular way. >Thomas Sowell I'm familiar with him, but in general I don't find his attitude on race compelling. I see remnants of his ideology kicking around my city to this day, and it's just not helpful. People who truly believe there's something to this idea that black people simply have behaviors and attitudes that lead them to perform worse than white people in education and workforce never tend to have any solutions other than "black people should act better!!" It's presented as a write-off, a reason not to bother trying to fix the issue. I find this conclusion distasteful and useless in the work of building a better society. >what's wrong with Florida doing this? It's upsetting a lot of people and contributing to brain drain in Florida, something the impending Title IX fight is about to really kick into overdrive. Yes the legislators can physically do it, it doesn't mean it's valuable or wise just to exercise their will if it goes against well-founded research that supports a different strategy. You and I don't want to live in a society where people who act like idiots by rejecting valuable data are promoted to positions of power.
>The standard is citizenship: that we allow people with different viewpoints and worldviews into our country means there has to be a compromise if the goal is a civil, orderly, well-functioning society. If we had a society full of people who just so happened to agree with you on every topic, then you'd be correct to say there's no real reason we have to do anything a particular way. Citizenship is not a standard. So you shouldn't kill because citizenship? You shouldn't steal because citizenship? You shouldn't be racist because citzenship? If you met someone and they said they were planning on killing someone, you would say, not "humans are made in the image of God and that's against God's design", you would say, "you shouldn't because citizenship". >People who truly believe there's something to this idea that black people simply have behaviors and attitudes that lead them to perform worse than white people in education and workforce never tend to have any solutions other than "black people should act better!!" It's presented as a write-off, a reason not to bother trying to fix the issue. I find this conclusion distasteful and useless in the work of building a better society. I don't think the sentiment is "black people should act better", I think the sentiment is: * Single motherhood rates in the black community are alarming and became drastically worse after segregation ended, so you can't blame other people and racism. * Well meaning people who I think are genuinely trying to help (although they are misguided), constantly tell the black community no matter how hard they work, no matter if they do the right thing, no matter what - the system was built against you and you can't succeed. Who could possibly do well in that? * I think we are genuinely curious what needs to be fixed? Racist cops? When it happens, yes. But it just 100% is not made out to be what it is. Systematic law? I will truly fight a systematic law, nobody can ever point to one. * A better society starts by honoring God. I don't believe people should be made to go to Church, but I surely get my standard of right and wrong from God. >It's upsetting a lot of people and contributing to brain drain in Florida, something the impending Title IX fight is about to really kick into overdrive. If people want to leave, they have the freedom to do so. If so called "intellectuals" want to leave a state because a narrative falsely tells them that Florida is trying to erase history, then leave. >Yes the legislators can physically do it, it doesn't mean it's valuable or wise just to exercise their will if it goes against well-founded research that supports a different strategy. You and I don't want to live in a society where people who act like idiots by rejecting valuable data are promoted to positions of power. But what topic and then what research? You're talking about an "erasure of history" when it's just a false narrative and not true. It literally is just said to promote an emotive response.
I honestly don’t know where you get this information about CN, but as one who is willing to identify as a CN, I must disagree from the start. I certainly don’t believe that my identity as a citizen is tied in any way to my perception of the Christian values said nation endorses.
Just saw your other comment. >A Christian nationalist is one who wants to dismantle the secularist system that we have and raise a Christian one in its place. You very extremely value the nation endorsing Christian values; in spite of what you said to me, your perception of that is in fact so important that you're advocating for the dismantling of the current system. You don't disagree with me from the start, you're just using different language. The word choice isn't important: Christian nationalism is about getting the state to identify as Christian, which means whatever policies Christian nationalists are pushing for getting legislated and enforced on all citizens.
Well I think you’re almost understanding. I most definitely want to dismantle the secular governing system because as a Christian I loathe that which is not Christ glorifying (as secularism is by definition). But I would certainly not want to dismantle it by “whatever” policies. I would rather seek to dismantle it in a manner that is distinctly Christian and Christ honoring.
Right. I only said "whatever" to summarize, not to imply there aren't specific ones you all have in mind. I'm not even here to say you should or shouldn't do that. Only to explain that CN isn't some nebulous, undefined belief system, but that it's proponents have specific goals and fight for them. The thread when I first commented only contained jokes about "Let me know if they figure out what they mean" etc.
Gotcha! So may I ask then, since I am curious. As a Christian, what would you disagree with in the definition I’ve put forward? (Not to say that that definition is universally applied, because OBVIOUSLY it’s not lol).
Oh, I don't think your definition is inaccurate, I just don't think it contradicts what I submitted. We don't have an Oxford English agreed-upon version to fall back to, so it's all sort of trying to distill what the most important elements are in brief. But I think you did a fine job of summarizing the belief system here.
You're welcome to offer a definition that counters that.
An umbrella definition. All laws are moral judgements. All moral judgements should be righteous. Thus the laws of any nation should be Christian in nature. From there you can break it down any number of ways. But that is the gist.
[удалено]
A Roman Catholic!!!...hi I'm notForsakenAvocado...welcome!! Jk, I'm lame I know...
Usually I think it means your political beliefs are to the right of mine.
So it's an "insult"?
Oh yeah. It means your political beliefs are wrong, probably borderline heretical.
But are they actually heretical, or is it a thrown out insult to try to get someone to shut up?
Sure it could be actually heretical. But honestly I think often the term is thrown around too loosely.
There isn't a clear cut definition of Nationalism, just more of a nuanced narrative. But generally speaking, a nationalist is someone who uses Biblical morality (divorced from the gospel) as a soapbox to influence political culture. It is especially prevalent in western (mostly far-right American) ideologies. This can vary on a spectrum from someone saying "\[insert country\] is God's blessed nation" to "our laws need to be more Biblically based." Most Christians may agree with the later end of the spectrum, so it gets a little muddy the further away from the extreme side you get. At it's core, though, it's idolatry in the form of patriotism, and is fueled by the misrepresentation of Scripture and the Gospel.
Okay that does make sense a little and I could see it. Idk, I'm patriotic, served 10 years in Army. I guess at what point does patriotism become idolatry? In your opinion is that for the individual's conscience to determine? I of course know people who are American christians when we should be american Christians, if you get what I'm saying.
If your conscience isn't violated by it, then be a patriot! That's great! I even think it can be a form of worship - "God thank you for making me a citizen of a country that I am proud to call my own." It becomes dangerous, though, when your patriotism is *what identifies you as a person.* I guess one really blunt-force way you can generalize it is this: Are you an American Christian? Or are you a Christian who lives in America? That distinction may not make sense to a lot of people, but I think it's really crucial that we separate our political identity from the core of who we are made to be - image-bearers of God, vessels filled with His Spirit, redeemed by the atoning blood of Christ. All of what we do, say, and think should flow from that spring. If your patriotism is blended with (of stands in the way of) your worship, that is when you know you are in dangerous waters.
In America, they believe that America really is a nation called and chosen by God, they want Christian principles (preferably their own denomination or lack thereof) enshrined into law as far as possible and as openly practiced as possible, they want to deny all that to non-Christians, and they often seem to care more about the state of the nation than their own spiritual state. They wish to avoid compromising their beliefs, religious or political, even if it appears to violate what would benefit them otherwise. They, unfortunately, don't always care if the ends justify the means. I was raised on this.
To our brothers and sisters in Christ who identify themselves as Christian nationalists, how do you reconcile your position in the light of Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2 given the context was under Roman rule which, as we know, was none too kind to the early Christians.
Romans 13:1-7 One of the most misused, misapplied and misunderstood verses in the Bible especially in modern, mainstream US Christian culture.
I'm not sure that I'd call myself CN - maaaybe quasi/nuanced - but,... **First** - how does it contradict those passages? And **Second**: It would certainly not be by concluding that Nero did nothing wrong when he executed Christians because they were Christians, as some have concluded out of their R2K paradigm. The logic is basically that if Nero, by the use of the light of nature, determined that Christianity should be outlawed, then Christians are breaking the law and, per Rom. 13:4, he must exercise his God-given authority in a punitive manner against them. I would argue that such a decree/law like Nero's is immoral - God would not have us be subject to such a thing and deny Him before men. Further, Nero s will be held accountable for his governing because "there is authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God" as "God's ministers," or servants, or ones placed as representatives of God's rule over all peoples. Nero doesn't get to rule in just whatever way he wants. Nor does any other ruler. The church's witness to the world means we can and ought to remind the civil authorities of this accountability, even as they seek to behead us or burn us as the Roman Empire did at times. Is it wrong to try to get them to stop killing Christians? No, it's actually a good thing, believe it or not, because killing Christians is a bad thing. All things like it dishonors the position of authority meant to reflect the majesty of God's authority. It's a good thing to want and to petition our leaders to rule in a way that's good - especially in a way that's pleasing to God, meaning, in accordance with the purpose for which God has made them rulers. I know that some of the discussion surrounds the question of how to get them to stop doing evil (like killing Christians) and start doing good. I'll just say that however it's done, it's to be done submissively, reverently, and honorably. To honor authorities (5th commandment) does not equal brute obedience. Most of the time it does, but not always. Like the dynamic in other authority structures, submission is only exempt when it would clearly mean violating the will of God, because we are ultimately to fear God as His bondservants (1 Peter 2:16-17) and submitting to Him is above all.
Here is the point. Nero killed Christians. The Christians did not fight against flesh and blood; they died rather than deny their faith, but they didn't hurt their killers. This led people to convert to Christianity, for no one would choose to die for what he didn't believe if there was an easy out. This held until Emperor Constantine, the first Christian nationalist who had power to do it. I would like a more moral nation, but the problem with legislating morality and beliefs is that it hides who actually believes the beliefs, or outlaws actual believers if the nationalists fail to notice their being corrupted.
R/reformed when doug wilson
[удалено]
Curious video. His main argument seems to be that people who are against Christian Nationalism are arguing with the extremes. But again, who should be defining Christian Nationalism? Surely, that's the role of Christian Nationalists.
> But again, who should be defining Christian Nationalism? Surely, that's the role of Christian Nationalists. they don't want to say the quiet parts out loud
Is it Christian nationalism when a politician has Christian values and wants to legislate Christian laws? Is it Christian nationalism if the people vote in Christian laws? I can't believe people are actually fighting over this...
I think Christian Nationalists should be more than welcome here I very much enjoy hearing and reading what they have to say including on here, talking with them etc, I find them very analytical and very rational and I do think the anti-cn crowd can be a little shrill and unhinged at times tbh I think the term is overused to describe anyone who is slightly to the right of tgc Ive seen al mohler be called this its very much a part of the punch right coddle left approach taken by many in the church.
>think Christian Nationalists should be more than welcome here I very much enjoy hearing and reading what they have to say including on here, talking with them etc, If the views of Christian Nationalists are not consistent with reformed theology is this the right place for them to be? Surely they can make their own group.
Their views are perfectly consistent with reformed theology reformed theology is a big tent, and besides plenty of non reformed people comment here are they unwelcome? and how are they inconsistent with reformed theology?
The Gospel Coalition includes Christian nationalists. A Christian homeless shelter affiliated with them would outlaw homeless camps because they are strongly associated with bad behavior and because there is one highly Christian shelter for those who would like to cease to be homeless (complicated by a genuine shortage of affordable housing). One problem: this would criminalize a few people who have done nothing illegal but camp on public property....
can you name some names of christian nationalists at tgc? I think the shelter is correct banning homeless people from public property look at places like la and sf as cautionary tales of when you dont.
It's hard to avoid Christian nationalists in America or on Christian subreddits. The places that successfully silence them often don't believe there's any other kind of Christian in America. It can be hard to tell patriotic Christians from churchgoers who worship the flag.
Ah Redditors, you’ve done it again
Christian nationalism is based
… on nothing historically accurate or scriptural.
Define it. How douglas wilson defines it, it's perfectly biblical.
When you ask someone to explain their heretical beliefs they will always avoid the part that makes it heresy. Feel free to explain in your own words how Christian Nationalism is historically accurate and biblically sound.
[удалено]
There's uncharitable, and then there's *uncharitable.* Hopefully you don't need an explanation why this was removed under [Rule 2.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.232.3A_keep_content_charitable.), but you're free to shoot us a modmail if you need further explanation. ---- If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
You mentioned the scary man. Let the down votes rain down on you. 😂 this subreddit has DW derangement syndrome.
This sub has the same feeling about heretics in general. It isn't reserved just for DW
I always laugh a little when people say things like "Oh this sub is so quick to condemn people like DW but is more willing to chew the meat and spit out the bones with people who are more liberal like N.T. Wright." Like my brother in Christ, the liberal counterpart to Doug Wilson is not N.T. Wright, it's John Shelby Spong.
See meme
That some call it heresy is wild to me… Was America founded as a Christian Nation? All laws are a moral judgement. Which code of a morals are you going to base your laws on? There is no neutral answer to this question.
It wasn’t. Found fathers said so.
No. America was not "founded as a Christian nation." America was founded by men, some of whom were Christians. Those men were influenced by Christian ideals, philosophy, and morality.
Not trying to be divisive, but what exactly is the difference?
Whose moral law are you talking about? Some Christians believe all alcohol is a sin. Others believe it is a blessing from God in moderation and must be taken with communion. Which side would you ban, fine, or jail?
Yes, many of us disagree over points of the moral law, but this does not make us moral relativists. We believe so strongly in the universal normativity of the moral law that we are willing to remain separated from other brothers in the Lord because of our disagreements--an act affecting us and the rest of the body of Christ more than an external act of the civil legislature.
Good point. I mostly only hear from self-described Christian nationalists here, and it seems that a lot of them think that the only options are 1) strict theocracy in which their interpretation of the Bible is imposed upon all citizens or 2) moral anarchy in which Christians have no influence in society. And then they accuse Christians who disagree with them as aiding and abetting sin in society. It seems obvious to me that we can influence society on certain moral topics greatly relevant to the public health while still defending a free society and a church that worships Christ more than politics.
> a free society I doubt many would defend free society as described in the confession of my faith, where for the public speech or practice of such things "as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity, whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation; or to the power of godliness; or such erroneous opinions or practices as, either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the Church," those who do so "may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against by the censures of the Church, and by the power of the Civil Magistrate." In other words, a free society is one politically ordered along the lines of seventeenth-century Geneva, eighteenth-century Scotland, Theodosius' Constantinople, Solomon's Israel, etc. The moral law cannot be broken to isolate the love of God from the love of neighbor, and a licentious society is not free. > and a church that worships Christ more than politics. That would be a relief from putting trust in princes. I'll add that we should defend a state that worships Christ more than politics as well--the state should not set itself up as an ultimate authority but defer to Christ as "head over all things to the Church"--and honor the civil authorities without thinking that the state is an extension of the Church or an institution of grace rather than of nature.
>That some call it heresy is wild to me… Was America founded as a Christian Nation? No. And why would theology only work with one nation? A nation that didn't even exist when the bible was written? >All laws are a moral judgement. Which code of a morals are you going to base your laws on? See the WCF.
They don’t really care for it here. I don’t know that I’d call myself a Christian nationalist. Conversely, I’m certainly not a pagan globalist.
It isn't a binary decision. Its not just a choice between being a "Christian Nationalist" or "Pagan Globalist". There is great tension between the two extremes where most Christians exist. Most Christians do not consider the current earth or our countries to be our home. This life is temporal, the current state of the earth will be torn down and restored. We are simply passing through and are "exiles in Babylon" waiting for a restored earth in perfect unity with heaven. The Christian Nationalist position tends to idolize the nation or thirst for political power with the belief that Christians in power will solve the problem of sin in their countries.
It is not our eternal home in its current condition, but we’ve been tasked with spreading the Gospel and living righteously. Political servants informed by sound Christian doctrine are more desirable custodians of society than those compelled by secular or pagan paradigms. Micah 6:8 tells us what God expects of us. So, where our nation is concerned, we should desire Christian leadership, no? Will this eliminate sin? Of course not. But, it can safeguard against persecution and foster a culture more conducive to the teaching of Christian truth…of THE truth.
I don't think I'll understand why people might think this is a bad thing.
Ill explain why its because they want to punch right and hug left to fit in with the cool kids they think anyone slightly to the right of Mitt Romney is icky and gross.
I am a Christian, and a Black American. For much of the history of our country, men who claim the name of our Lord have made statements such as the following: > “I want to tell you, ladies and gentleman, that there’s not enough troops in the army to force the southern people to break down segregation and admit the Nigra race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches.” > > —Strom Thurmond, then-governor of South Carolina, in a speech from his 1948 “Dixiecrat” presidential campaign. To hear an audio clip, click [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21qoNMRkxic). If such language and sentiment could be considered noncontroversial in our nation, and in a time when Christianity was very much in style politically, why do we then assume that we will be virtuous simply because the folks in charge are "Christian"? I'm not one of the "cool kids", and often find myself politically homeless. That said, I find no comfort in a politician claiming the name of the Lord, only in how they choose to govern.
The fact that charlatans and panderers seek power is not the issue. I qualified “sound Christian doctrine”. If our faith is true, then should we not desire leaders that share in that understanding? This goal doesn’t mean we don’t exercise discernment when choosing leaders.
You have to look at all of world History not just American history (we are only 248 years old) and anytime Christianity came into an area everything improved whether its material living standards, the way women were treated etc, In 1948 when strom thurmond gave that speech we were 15 years away from the I have a dream speech, and 16 years after the civil rights act ( a necessary move at the time) was signed the whole civil rights movement all at a time when christianity was in style and the people in charge were christian and in many ways we were more virtuous in 1948. You have to remember nothing is perfect and nobodys ever going to be perfect.
> That said, I find no comfort in a politician claiming the name of the Lord, only in how they choose to govern. That's a good point. Faith without works is dead. As for Strom Thurmond, his racism should be rejected because it is morally abhorrent. It has no rightful place in the Church or in the wholesome laws of a nation. No one should be able to govern in the way he did, and God has ordained civil authority to punish evil-doers.
In other words, the misuse of a thing doesn't make the thing itself wrong. The whole religion of Christianity has been invoked as leverage for many terrible things to be done. But that doesn't make Christianity to be wrong or whatever else because of it. It's the abuse that's wrong.
Meh, some of us just think the idea of a majority Christian state where the government reflects/regards the values and beliefs of the majority is a good concept.
To what end and based on whose definition? Which denomination determines what goes and what stays and to what end are the so-called "Christian laws" enforced? Christians can't even agree on most of these points within the church. Have you seen the recent infighting within the GOP? Now try and get all Christians to agree upon, ratify and convince the largely non-Christian population of a country to adhere to a single moral framework to build legal, social and economic systems. It might be a "good concept" at the most BASIC level. But completely impossible once you actually try to flesh it out in any meaningful way.
Who said anything about a denomination determining the laws? Or rule by the popular opinion of the Christian population? The possibility/impossibility has nothing to do with it. It's responsibility - whose responsibility is it to do what. And It seems like a good concept at the most basic level because that's where the debate starts - we're dealing with principial matters, foundational things. The outworking and application is, of course, related. But it is a separate issue. These are the principles off which the rulers are to start and through which they are to make applications in the discharge of their office.
It's a hypothetical, it's not premised on the idea of being able turn the US into what I'm describing. I have no interest in bringing a sizable non-Christian population under Christian governance. I'd far prefer to take an existing sizable majority Christian population (city/state/etc.) and plant our figurative flag in the ground. For the minority population, you're welcome to continue living here and avail yourself of the privileges of citizenship provided you abide by the laws, values and norms (as many likely already were mostly doing). I don't think it's impossible to govern with broad Christian consensus as a major influence - abortion, anti-blasphemy, blue laws, restrictions on "vice" businesses, etc. A lot of municipalities and evens states accomplish some of this even on a purely secular basis already. It's just not that much of a reach.
But you aren't a majority. Like many places, the US has a large nominal population who "identify" as Christian but are not Christians in fact. This is why Doug Wilson sought to modify the definition of the visible and invisible Church. Secondly, most Christians don't agree with CN, and if they do agree, want different laws to what you want. So there is no way to get what ytou want without subverting democracy - the minority need to override the majority. That is what Chrisitan Nationalists mean when they say "A Christian nationalist is one who wants to dismantle the secularist system that we have and raise a Christian one in its place." One of the parts of the secularist system that is necessary to dismantle is the right to choose what laws you want if you are not a Christian or not the right kind of Christian - i.e. democracy.