I was going to share a PostScript to Friday’s article with some further red herrings in Michael Reade’s article in Evangelicals Now. However, it struck me that Michael wasn’t really served well by his article in EN. I hope the editorial team can learn some lessons from this. Reade ended up, in my opinion, attempting to respond to two articles whilst seeking to defend a position different to the one being critiqued.
It should be fairly obvious that Reade isn’t defending and doesn’t agree with the form of Christian Nationalism we’ve seen on our streets and sadly at times preached from pulpits. Rather, what he wants to do is to make a defence of the position set out by the Magisterial reformers.
Now, I think it is possible to make such a case, though I expect that I will disagree with it. To do so would involve first of all setting out the argument and justifying it from Scripture. It would then need some distinguishing. The proponent would need to distinguish it from Christian Nationalism as seen today and its immediate foundations. In other words, the need to show how this is different from Federal Vision Dominionism and ethno-cultural nationalism.
They would also need to distinguish their nuanced position from aspects of what the Magisterial Reformers said and did. It is grievous that they got drawn into a situation where people could be imprisoned, exiled and burnt to death for holding a minority view. I’m sure advocates for their position would agree but we need to understand how they got to that position.
I’ve reached out to Reade and offered him the opportunity to engage with the question here on these pages. Watch this space.
Faithroots 