There has been much controversy, more State side than UK side, recently over the growth of something referred to as “Christian Nationalism.” Now, the variants of this we have seen have at times tended to give the impression that the focus is more on “nationalism” than the Christian bit. In other words, some (I’m not suggesting all) of those promoting these views give the appearance that they have baptised a particular form of right wing politics particularly around immigration with at its worst a descent into race based politics. Furthermore, Christian Nationalism may be seen as another weapon in the culture wars.
Linked to that, it seems that we are not talking about any Christian Nationalism. It’s not merely that nation states should exist and should be Christian. We are often talking about American Christian Nationalism. Or rather, American Nationalism with the assumption that American is synonymous with Christian.
I believe that there is another problem with that form of Christian Nationalism. You see it is essentially informed by a modern view of the nation and the state. It owes its thinking to 19th and even 20th century political philosophy and that becomes the hermeneutical lens through which Scripture is read.
However, it is worth noting that this isn’t the only form of what we might refer to as Christian nationalism (note I’ve shifted to a small ‘n’ here. There is a longer standing view that nations might be Christian. This tends to involve three expectations.
- That the laws customs and values of the country are shaped by Christian/Biblical teaching.
- That in so far as there is a dominant religion which shapes the culture it will be Christianity.
- That we would like to see as many people as possible professing faith in Christ.
- That when a significant proportion of the population have professed faith there will be an overflow into common grace so that the majority of people will be at least nominal adherents.
- That this will also make it possible for Christians to achieve prominent positions in government, business and culture.
It is worth observing a few things here. First that there are pros and cons to this scenario. On the positive side, it means that more people will benefit from the blessings of common grace. It means that the church is acting for the good of the city and the good of the nation in quite an overt way. The second benefit is that such a scenario offers the kind of peace and freedom that we are meant to pray for so that we have freedom to share the Gospel and to worship unhindered.
On the negative side, there is of course the risk that people might believe that because they live in a Christian country and are at least nominal adherents that they are Christians and so develop a false assurance. There is certainly from that perspective a benefit to Gospel witness when the dividing line between faith and unbelief is drawn more sharply. However, I think we can overstate the risks here. From a Reformed perspective I trust God’s sovereign will and his ability to known and to call his own to himself.
Secondly, from this perspective I think that we can describe countries as having been or still being “Christian”. Of course we do not mean “Christian” in the sense that the Government and rulers are all saved, that they preach the Gospel or that every person is a Christian. Rather, we are recognising the influence of Christianity on the culture and public life.
Thirdly, it is possible that at any given time, any combination of the above factors may be present in a society and this means that we are not necessarily talking about a binary choice between Christian and no-Christian. We may identify ways in which a country is Christian and ways in which it isn’t. For example, the United States might identify ways in which its laws and culture are shaped by the Bible, may currently have prominent Christians in prominent positions and continue to have a significant proportion of the population adhering. The UK has a heritage whereby longstanding laws and customs are shaped by Biblical teaching, continues to have a state church and would still have a significant proportion of the population who adhere. However, the numbers who adhere are declining rapidly, what it means to adhere is being watered down, new laws are very clearly not shaped by Scripture and it is very difficult for a believer to achieve a prominent role in public life. Other countries like South Korea would have their culture and laws shaped by other factors historically but are seeing increasing numbers of believers and adherents.
Fourth, on that basis, I don’t think that there is really much for humanists/secularists to object to when a Country seeks to be Christian in this kind of way. Certainly, the assumption that pluralism somehow offers a better option is misguided. Such presuppositions assume that there is something, the secular position which counts as neutral and that this neutral position is the one best placed to cater for and hold together all the different minorities. Humanistic secularism is no more neutral than Christianity or Islam. Furthermore, it is perfectly possible for a country shaped by one religion/culture to protect and care for minorities, especially when tolerant values are at the heart of that culture and belief system.
In that respect, we might expect to see different countries around the world described as “Christian” others described as Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist. We should also not be surprised or concerned to see that one country identifies as Jewish both ethnically and religiously. We should also not be surprised that some people might prefer to live in a country shaped by Judaism rather than other philosophies.
Fifth, I cannot see anything on the above list that would not be desirable. I would rather see more people coming to faith than not. I think it is good that friends, family and neighbours benefit from common grace and so I want to show kindness and goodness to them. I would rather that the laws of this land were shaped by Biblical teaching than any of the other philosophies and ideologies we might choose from. I would distinguish here from “Theo-nomism” which is the mistaken belief that you can simply transplant the Torah laws into the constitution of a country today. It saddens me to see the way in which overt Evangelicals such as Kate Forbes and Tim Farron were driven out of public front line politics. It’s not just that I think that they should be free to serve regardless of a private religious faith. Rather, I believe that their public faith was a positive in terms of what they had to contribute to public life.
However, I must add that there is a third type of “Christian nationalism” which I think needs distinguishing from the other two although it can relate strongly to them. This is the kind of Christian nationalism which I described in a previous article as relying heavily on a 17th Century worldview. From this perspective, the Christian nation becomes not only a desirable good thing but both achievable and necessary so that working towards it becomes a central Christian duty. There may be a tendency among some holding this view towards Theo-nomism as well though I’m not convinced that this is essential.
The basis for this approach seems to arise from interpretations of two themes in Scripture. First, there are Bible passages that talk about the rulers of the nations bowing to The Son/Messiah as the true king of kings (c.f. Psalm 2, Daniel 4, Revelation 11:15). Secondly, there’s Jesus’ instruction to make disciples of the nations in Matthew 28:18ff.
Now, I think there are two problems here with the interpretative assumptions made. First, such an interpretation relies on a post-millennial framework. From such a perspective, Christ’s millennial reign is something that grows and reaches fruition prior to his return so that we might expect to see the majority of people in the world around us professing faith and the structures and values of society being substantially shaped by God’s Word. I don’t think we can presume that and in fact it would run contrary to much of Scripture which points to continuing and growing resistance against God and his ways prior to Christ’s return. Christians can expect to find themselves in the minority, Christians must be prepared to suffer.
We shouldn’t treat God’s challenge to the rulers of the nations as something that we should attempt to enact. We should not slip into an over-realised eschatology which expects and attempts things this side of Christ’s return which are only promised after he comes back.
The other issue is that this approach presumes an interpretation of Matthew 28 whereby we disciple the nations “of all nations” can refer either to this or to the more classical understanding whereby we make disciples “from all nations.” Even if we take the former translation, I think it is an overreach to suggest that this in effect means the discipling of whole states, including their public structures. Rather, it would remain the case that we might expect significant Gospel influence and conversions in any given society.
My concerns with this form of Christian nationalism are as follows
- As mentioned previously, it seems to impose a 17th century framework into contexts both in the early church and the modern church where it would not make sense.
- It presumes a particular interpretation approach which is subject to challenge. The risk is that we treat our interpretation rather than Scripture itself as infallible.
- It risks a drift into over-realised eschatology with the further risk of presumption and hubris.
- It risks diverting our priorities away from the Gospel.
The latter is I think even more so when this view becomes combined with certain forms of paedo-baptism. Our focus is diverted from telling people the good news to seeking to raise (laege families) identifying as Christian in order to shape public life. I simply find no evidence in the New Testament that this was what Jesus called his disciples to do or what they practiced.
In conclusion, I think there are right and helpful ways to see a form of Christian nationhood as positive, desirable even but these need to be carefully distinguished from the two types of Christian Nationalism I’ve critiqued here.
Faithroots 