Evangelicals Now have published a response to my article on Christian Nationalism here. I thought it might be helpful just to engage with Michael Reade, especially at the points where he seeks to critique me. Reade states early on that:
“As someone who is sympathetic to several of the political aims of Christian nationalism, I would like to offer what I hope will be an illuminating contribution to the ongoing debate by responding to some recent critiques.”
Well, I think that his contribution is illuminating, though maybe not in the way intended! I would welcome proper debate and discussion on this subject, it’s something that I’ve been longing to see for a little while and have invited conversations. Such a debate needs to be held in good faith. Now, we cannot get behind the text of an article or speech to determine someone’s motives but there are ways in which we can better show good faith. I would highlight them as follows.
- Address the issue instead of attacking the person, in other words avoid ad-hominem attacks.
- Make sure you represent the other person fairly, in a manner that they would recognise their own position.
- Reasonably anticipate what their response might be.
These are not just good principles in terms of being gracious and godly. They also tend to help you make better arguments.
Diatribes?
Reade begins by writing:
“Political theology at its best can be an edifying pursuit as we learn together how to engage faithfully in our post-Christendom nation. However, the subject of ‘Christian nationalism’ has become a flashpoint, where rigorously irenic disagreement seems to have been sacrificed for a series of alarmist diatribes.
Whilst legitimate critiques can be made of any number of the sprawling ideologies labelled “Christian nationalism,” it does not serve anyone well to overreact. Indeed, those who ricochet against Christian nationalism are in danger of not only forcing today’s church into passionless political passivity, but also anathematising the vast majority of Christians throughout history who faithfully pursued Christian influence at a national level.”
I wonder if that’s the most helpful way of beginning a contribution to a debate. Reade has made some big claims here and we are going to be looking for evidence for them. First of all, on what basis can he argue that those who disagree with Christian Nationalism are “in danger of …forcing the church into passionless political passivity”? Even if Reade believes the Christian Nationalism is the political philosophy which is most faithful to what the Bible teaches and even if he believes it to be most consistent with Christian historical thought, to argue that the alternative to it must be political passivity stands in opposition to the evidence of many Christians, throughout history and in contemporary times who are far from politically passive. Just to respond from my own perspective. I am not a Christian Nationalist but I’ve been a member of a political party, I’ve knocked on doors, I’ve produced publicity material, I’ve made speeches in support for a political position.
Now, my party political engagement is distant autobiographical history now and I take the view that elders need to be careful about bipartisan party political association. However, I can reassure Reade that this has not diminished my engagement on political issues. I’ve written personally to my MPs over the years about subjects including abortion, euthanasia and genocide in Nigeria. I’ve written here on Faithroots concerning those very subjects and other matters such as antisemitism, immigration and asylum. I’ve also delved into economic issues, particularly around poverty, inflation and taxation. Oh and then there are the more local political issues, a football club banning Israeli fans and a bin-strike that goes on and on.
His suggestion that by disagreeing with others on this issue throughout history we anathematise the is rather hyperbolic. It begs the question as to how we are meant to disagree with the view points of others. Surely it is possible to critique the position of people in history, without anathematising them. How do you have a disagreement in your family or church if the assumption is that disagreement must by its nature casts doubt on another’s salvation and requires their excommunication?
But note that the general go to devise is hyperbole. In contrast to Reade’s” illuminating contribution” to the debate what has gone before amounts to “alarmist diatribes.” Now, I would gently suggest that when Christians march with far right groups and share their platforms then we may well be past the point of “alarmism.” I might also push back and ask whether or not it is “alarmist” to be describing asylum seekers as an invasion and claiming that we need to be ready for a civil war when socialists are going to unite with Muslims to destroy us (these are the kinds of arguments being made by Christian Nationalists at such events and in their related articles and videos). Apparently, we “over react” and also ricochet off instead of merely disagreeing. I presume that’s because of the mighty and impressive fortifications to the philosophy.
Do you see the affect this kind of approach has? Instead of engaging with another argument at its strongest, you seek to dismiss it. You set up your position as the one based on reason and your opponents are emotional. Mind you, we might ask whether there is really anything wrong with some emotion. Reade needs to show that we are overreacting. If we are, then he has a legitimate defence. If we are not, then surely some emotion in response to the concerns we raise is appropriate.
A critique at the fringes or a root problem?
Reade thinks that it is okay to offer critiques of “of any number of the sprawling ideologies labelled “Christian nationalism,” Essentially, this is the argument that there are few, fringe extreme concepts in relation to Christian Nationalism. However, he does not just have to attempt to anticipate my response to such an argument here. He already has it. In my article, I wrote:
“Do you remember six years ago, when we were becoming aware of a new coronavirus? Novel because this particular strain of virus had not been seen before. It spread around the world like wildfire, resulting in many deaths.
Over time, that virus mutated into different strains. The mutations were all slightly different, sometimes with different symptoms and different levels of virulence and resistance to vaccines but were related closely enough to still be considered the same virus.
That analogy is helpful for our understanding of something that has begun to get noticed in Christian circles and in wider society, something that tends to go under the name “Christian nationalism.” Arguably, there is a variety of ideas and movements that seem to be placed under this label and there seems to be diversity between them. However, a careful look under the microscope shows that they are closely related.
At the heart of my critique of Christian Nationalism is that whilst there might be diverse expressions of it, those expressions are interrelated and have common roots. I’ve identified those roots as Dominionism (The Seven Mountain Mandate), Theonomism/Reconstructionism (the reformed variety being particularly associated with Federal Vision ideology) and political nationalism. I am afraid that I also have to add that whilst the defence is that the problems are just at the extremes, I’m waiting for a full critique from those who say they are supportive of Christian Nationalism of the Unite the Kingdom movement. Indeed, the same people who say “oh its diverse” are the very same people quick to tell me that I shouldn’t critique such things because that means I don’t care about “reaching the right”.
A minority report?
The bulk of Reade’s defence of Christian Nationalism is an appeal to the claim that this is the historical reformed position. He responds to the argument that Ryan Burton King and I both use where we reference early Baptist arguments about the role of governments by dismissing them as “a minority report.”
Yet, that is to miss the very point being made. The early Baptists knew full well that they were a minority. They also understood that being in the minority does not make you wrong. I remember Dan Strange, tutor in public theology at Oak Hill when I was there, pointing out to students that we as reformed evangelicals were in the minority within the wider evangelical constituency. Reformed Evangelicals often find themselves providing minority reports in academic theology, we probably were in the minority when it came to dealing with the attack on penal substitution in the early noughties. Wilberforce could have been dismissed as offering a minority report against the slave trade. Historically, Christians have been the minority. Those early Baptists and the forerunners of independency recognised, like the fellowship of the ring in Tolkien’s novel that it is not a good idea to try and harness the power used against you as soon as it becomes available.
This brings us to the one of the claims Reade opened with, that we are anathematising faithful believers from history. He says:
“As Williams concedes, the theological bases of Christian nationalism were “accepted by the Reformers including Luther, Calvin and Zwingli.” (One wonders whether he would as comfortably call these “heretical” as he does modern Christian nationalists.)
But in fact, I didn’t concede anything. That is just another rhetorical device that misrepresents the argument. What in fact, I argue is as follows:
“So, the theological approach that Christian nationalism is rooted in doesn’t align with what the New Testament and early church history shows. However, after Constantine, it became the presumption for much of the known world that nations were Christian and this was accepted by the Reformers including Luther, Calvin and Zwingli.
Note, two things here. First, my point is that the foundational presumptions of the church were not Christian Nationalist because the early church was used to existing as the minority. However, post Constantine, the church finds itself in a different position where it is the recognised religion across the Europe and where those who hold political power claim to be Christians. That affects how the magisterial reformers understand their role and the role of the church. There are numerous implications arising from that including their understanding of mission and evangelism. After all, they see themselves as there to reform rather than to convert.
As for calling people “heretics, here is how I conclude
“the alignment we are seeing with political nationalism is especially grievous. The far-right is not merely one extreme on the political spectrum, it is a different agenda that relies on conspiracy theories in order to identify specific groups of people to dehumanise and demonise as the enemy and to blame for all of society’s ills. The light has nothing to do with this darkness. Christians need to be alert to how this type of ideology gives space for overt hatred and even violence, leading to many of our brothers and sisters from immigrant backgrounds living in fear and danger.
It is my belief that the coming together of these strands has resulted in a serious danger where the church cannot afford to be silent and sit on the fence as we see Evangelical Christianity co-opted into a heretical and extreme movement.
And if so that those who hold to such a position are indeed heretics, promoting a false gospel and a false Christ. It is important then to ask the question as to whether the reformers would have recognised this expression today as Christian. I don’t believe that they would. There is a significant difference between tracing back the roots of an ideology and claiming that the historical movement that those roots are in is identical to what we see today.
To give another example. In the unedited version of my article, I noted that the term “Christian Nationalism” was coined in Apartheid South Africa to define the version of Fascism and Nationalism that took root there. Now, you can trace back the Nationalist Party’s roots to the Dutch Reformed. We can surely distinguish between saying that those 1940s South Africans were by their own account Fascists from suggesting that earlier Dutch Reformed thinkers like Kuyper were.
Knowing your Bible
Reade picks up on my observation that the theme of Scripture is that we are “strangers and exiles”. He objects:
“Williams claims that his opposition to Christian nationalism is “clear from the New Testament” based on the paradigm of believers as “exiles in this world.” But what he claims is “clear” was evidently not clear enough to persuade the majority of Protestant Reformers and Puritans.
He surely does not wish to suggest that these were unfamiliar with the New Testament or the notion that Christians are pilgrims in this world.
The fact that we have an eternal, heavenly home does not diminish our responsibility to seek the common good of the temporary polis in which we live (Jeremiah 29v7). Fmost historic Christian theologians, that common good includes the promotion of Christianity.
It is worth dealing with that in two parts. First of all, Reade makes assumptions and claims that bear no relationship at all to what I’ve argued or what my position is. In fact, again it ignores what I do say:
“Whilst people such as Joseph and Daniel found themselves in positions of influence in the empires of their days with even Paul appearing before Caesar, that was not so much through choice as compulsion as they were captured and delivered as prisoners or slaves to those authorities.
The paradigm of “exiles and strangers” does not ignore instructions given to exiles to “seek the good of the city” but it does ask you to remember that it was as exiles that they were given this instruction and it was as exiles that Joseph and Daniel did seek the good of the city and the nation that they found themselves in.
Secondly, Reade’s response to an argument about what Scripture teaches is not to go to Scripture. Rather it’s again simply to tell me off for disagreeing with the perceived majority. It’s a terrible argument and the very kind of argument that has been historically deployed against protestants and the reformed. We want to insist that Scripture clearly teaches the solas of justification, faith, Scripture etc and those who disagree want to say “oh it can’t be that clear because much of the church has historically disagreed.”
The better question for Reade to ask is “why have people missed out on something that is so obvious and clear?”
Try again?
I’ve said many times that I would love for us to have a proper and better conversation on this subject. I don’t claim infallibility and so my own arguments are open to challenge. However, a better way of having that discussion is with Bibles open and actually listening to, representing accurately and responding to the arguments made.
Faithroots 