Sorting Out Doctrinal Concerns With Christian Nationalism

At the risk of offending everyone, I'm choosing not to offend my conscience.

If you’ve read what I’ve written at Insight to Incite, from my X account, and at Protestia, I understand why you might perceive that I’m a Christian Nationalist. But, that’s precisely why I’ve added quite a few caveats - here and there - that I am not. In fact, I stand by the article I wrote soon after launching this Substack, entitled To the Christian Nationalists: Listen to Michael O’Fallon.

Granted, it’s gotten pretty heated between O’Fallon and the Christian Nationalists, but I surmised that one particular concern of O’Fallon had merit; the very real possibility that this backfires spectacularly when the incoming regime leaves, and a new, God-hating regime takes its place with the same, newly enumerated powers.

Another reason why O’Fallon should be listened to, is that he clearly doesn’t oppose Christian Nationalism for the same reason as, say, Neil Shenvi or Russell Moore. Obviously, they’re working for the other team, and by that, I mean Satan. And I’m not saying they ought to obey O’Fallon, or submit to O’Fallon, or agree with O’Fallon. It’s always helpful to listen, however, to those who’ve personally demonstrated a willingness to personally sacrifice for causes you believe in and have proven it in the past. Obviously, I’m not recommending the Christian Nationalists listen to O’Fallon because of his affable personality or generosity of spirit (for the same reasons nobody accuses me of having either of those things).

However, most of what I’ve seen come out of the camp of legitimate political conservatives who oppose Christian Nationalism has not been a thorough attempt to negate the concept from the Scriptures, but from political philosophies. Accusations of sacralism, the “Roman Catholic view of magisterial government,” balkanizing the U.S., classical liberalism, or Ayn Rand only go so far in convincing people who didn’t come to their conclusions by way of political philosophy.

What I mean is, I think there’s been a failure to take to heart the heeding of Sun Tzu (as my friend, Cody Libolt, is right to often quote) who said, “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.” If you’re going to try to dissuade a group of people away from a theological notion they have, you can’t do so by citing political theory, no matter how good that political theory is.

CONCERNS DO EXIST

I have some of the same concerns as these men. I believe in a limited central government. I believe that, as Madison said in Federalist No. 51, limiting the powers of government is necessary because angels do not govern, but men. There’s clearly Reformed thought in Madison’s words, linking the idea to Total Depravity, that the sinful nature of men makes it necessary to limit the government. His full words were as follows:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

But, Christian Nationalists are largely unpersuaded by Madison or The Federalist Papers, because they didn’t come to their conclusions by reading political theorists. They came to their conclusions by reading the Bible, and the only work left to do is determine whether or not they are interpreting correctly, not whether it conforms to a particular political ideology.

If Christian Nationalists are considered “the enemy” (and they should not be), then to know them as Sun Tzu said, it would require acknowledging that the bulk of Christian Nationalists are Van Til men, who hold presuppositional views of Scripture and the world around them. I think this has been overlooked in much of the response to Christian Nationalists, which has been shouting at them arguments that they never cared about to begin with.

As a Christian with what I think is a decent view of history, I naturally fear giving the government any more power than what it now has, and can give you no shortage of historical examples of religious tyranny done in the name of Jesus, which only served to slaughter or imprison Christians. As a Baptist, I’ve come from the long line of Non-Conformists, who like Bunyan, got put into the gulag by a theocratic state. Or, to cite another example, Obadiah Holmes, who they gave 39 lashes in Boston, for observing Communion at the home of John Crandall, and for insulting the infant-sprinklers by keeping on his hat during worship.

Technically, Holmes also said, “He who stays to watch an infant be baptized, stays to worship the devil,” but the point is, the blood of this Baptist is the reason why the first charter in the world was given to Rhode Island with “freedom of religion” codified into law.

And as a polemicist, I can also only imagine a future Democrat regime in Washington, with newly enumerated political powers, enforcing First Table commands under the spiritual advisement of Russell Moore and David French. Fantastical, I know. But can you imagine? Let’s recall that only recently, Albert Mohler accused churches that stayed open against government demands (he was casting shade at MacArthur, without saying his name) of “engaging in spiritual malpractice.” Given that many on the right consider Albert Mohler to be “solid,” I’d be terrified who would be playing Rasputin no matter which regime was in charge.

Meanwhile, it’s pretty evident that leftists have elevated government as their god. They ascribe to the government divine attributes, including the ability to control the weather, to declare or change gender by pronouncement, to determine who is worthy of life and who is too little to deserve life (or who is a person and who is not), and with the power to unknit them in their mother’s womb. When January 6 brought about an unauthorized tour to the U.S. Capitol, leftists called it “sacrilege” and “profaning the sacred halls.” They spoke of it as a literal Abomination of Desolation because to them, it’s the temple to their gods.

If you appreciate my work, please consider supporting it with a paid subscription (and to receive exclusive content). The company for which I’ve worked for two years is in the midst of a million-dollar buy-out, and I’ve been off work due to that company transition since July, and don’t go back to work until the New Year, so this is something I do to help provide for my family. I would sure appreciate it, especially at Christmas time.

If you cannot afford a paid subscription, but still want to access exclusive content, just send me a message and I’ll give you a paid subscription for free. Love you.

Leftists look to the government to be their Jehovah Jireh, providing all their needs. Single mothers look to the government as their husband, who is to take responsibility for the care and feeding of their children. The previously blue-haired women who have now shaven their heads in a pledge to swear off men, are still betrothed, but to the government.

As a Christian, I don’t want even the appearance of trusting the government for any good thing. Their task, according to Paul (Romans 13) and Peter (1 Peter 2) is to “punish evil and reward good,” and it appears that they’re grossly incompetent at even that. I’m not sure I want them focusing on anything else, given their inability to make more than 8 electric car charging stations despite spending 7.5 billion dollars. Maybe they should focus right now on passing a Pentagon audit for the first time.

In short, Christians have good reason to distrust the government, and that distrust doesn’t easily convince us to entrust them with more responsibility.

But before I explain that further, from the Scriptures, let me say categorically that I fully applaud the goal of the Christian Nationalists I know, which is to build a Christian Nation.

Nationalism is categorically good. God created Nationalism, because God created the Nation State, which exists to promote the liberty, life, and welfare of its Citizens (and only its Citizens). Globalism, off the bat, is the goal of Satan, who attempted it with the Papacy and who will one day accomplish it with the Anti-Christ (but I repeat myself).

A nation should be Christian, its leaders should be Christians, and what it defines as “good” and “evil” in accomplishing what Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 demands must be defined in the Christian way, from the Christian Scriptures, according to the Christian God.

That is not to say, that the same conclusions can’t be wrought by adherence to Natural Law. The Founders, who were clearly inundated with Reformed Christian notions, chose to frame their conclusions in accordance to Natural Law, for a reason. Natural Law is nothing but truths extrapolated from God’s General Revelation (the things he has made). His General Revelation is indeed from God, that’s why it’s called that. But, I also agree with Van Til, who said (and I’m quoting from memory, so it may be off a word or two), “Natural Law is nothing but the law of God, put through the eyes of sinful men.”

In other words, a proper estimation of logic, good philosophy, and Natural Law will lead you to the same conclusions as Scripture (so far as government is concerned), but Special Revelation (the Bible) is always a surer and better witness, because it’s not extrapolated; it’s exegeted.

The real question at the heart of the Christian Nationalism debate is whether or not the making of a Christian Nation can be done by Legislative or Executive fiat. I’d submit, it cannot.

Forget, for a moment, that there’s no clear consensus (that I’ve seen) regarding the inclusion of Papists (or other pseudo-Christian cults) in an ostensibly Christian government. Those lines, for me, are blurred in some very troubling ways. But because I believe in depravity, I’m convinced the only Christian Prince worthy of reign is Jesus. As a historic pre-millennialist, I look forward to his literal reign over all the Earth, but again, I’ll confess that most Christian Nationalists hold a different eschatology that is more “optimistic.” I’m just not seeing anything in history that demonstrates success in this area.

The closest the West ever got to this ambition, was in the triumphant return of William of Orange in the Glorious Revolution in 1689, and the ouster of James II in England. Protestants and Puritans legitimately believed that he was the Christian Prince. But ultimately, he proved not to be. Cromwell and Kuyper were also bright spots in this ambition, but they didn’t last. And so, I’m pessimistic but understand many Christian Nationalists are not.

DEFINITIONS

Let me briefly explain some terms, before we proceed.

Theonomy - Real theonomy, the kind espoused by Rushdoony, North, and Bahnsen (I call it Theonomy 1.0), affirms the abiding validity of the Mosaic Judicial Code. This is a departure from the Westminster Confession of Faith Article 19, which is why Presbyterianism, Westminster Philadelphia, Reformed Theological Seminary (etc) denounced it so strongly. It purports the obligation to carry out the sundry judicial laws of Moses, given for the governance of Israel, “to their exhaustive detail” (to quote Bahnsen).

Obviously, I opposed that in my debate with Joel McDurmon, and I oppose it now, because I believe it contradicts Scripture and is contrary to my confession (the Second London Baptist Confession).

General Equity Theonomy - I hate this term with the fire of a thousand burning suns. It’s not theonomy. It’s full agreement with the explicit wording of the Westminster Confession, that the only applicable aspects of the Mosaic Judicial Code are those things which are moral and universal principles within them. This is keeping with Paul’s claim that “all Scripture is profitable for reproof, correction, and training in godliness.” But despite hating this term, this is the position I hold and have always held.

Theocracy - Theocracy is the position of the pre-1788 Westminster Confession of Faith (it was amended in curious timing with the ratification of the U.S. Constitution). It does not deal at all with the Mosaic Judical Code, but teaches that all of the Moral Law (the Ten Commandments) should be enforced by the civil magistrate. This means the government should enforce laws against blasphemy, idolatry, or Sabbath-breaking.

Theocrats may be theonomists, believing that the government should enforce both Tables of the Moral Law and the Mosaic Judicial Code, but it’s certainly possible to hold to Theocracy and not Theonomy (and this was the case for most of the Westminster divines).

Theonomists, however, who dismiss the Tripartite Divide altogether (the division of Mosaic law into the Judicial Code, the Ceremonial Code, and the Moral Code) and simply call it all - generally speaking - “God’s Law,” are typically both Theonomists and Theocrats.

That said, if Christian Nationalism is only a general pronouncement that the United States (or any government) should be both Christian and Nationalist, I would affirm it. But, I don’t think that’s the working definition at the moment. My opposition to Christian Nationalism is based upon my assumption that it requires Theocracy (fewer are holding to Theonomy all the time).

OPPOSITION ON PRINCIPLE

My doctrinal opposition to Christian Nationalism, with that definition in view, is for the same reason that I traveled Montana with a list of draconian health officials in my pocket, who we savaged so severely in the press and grass-roots mob-incitement that most resigned rather than deal with us. It’s the reason we didn’t close church for Covid. It’s the reason I criticized John MacArthur during the months that his church was closed under dictate of the state (few seem to remember that he, at first, bent his knee). It’s the reason we took the actual nails that the Sheriff Department nailed to the door of a church (nailing it shut) in a neighboring county, and instead nailed them into the door of the Sheriff Department and put the ‘closed sign’ they placed on the church, onto the Sheriff Department door.

Yeah, Covid was a wild time for me.

Simply put, I argued at the time that the civil magistrate has absolutely no authority over the local church. For the same reason that the state does not tax churches (it has nothing to do with a charitable tax status) - the ancient concept that the lesser cannot tax the greater - the magistrate cannot boss around Jesus Christ or his body, the church.

Demands of government submission, in Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2, is only within the realms of their jurisdictional authority. Just as you are not obligated to allow your home to be searched without a warrant, or a patrolman cannot pull you over outside his jurisdiction, authority is always limited. Just as an usurper of the King does not have the right of kingship, an earthly authority acting outside their power, can’t dictate the human conscience. Simply declaring yourself king, or wearing a badge, does not give you unbridled authority anywhere, any way, that you want.

OPPOSITION FROM DOCTRINE

Authority is limited for the government, because it cannot dictate worship. And authority is limited for the church, because we can’t execute criminal justice. But platitudes are easy, so I’ll share the proof text.

14They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know that you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay the imperial tax ^b to Caesar or not? 15Should we pay or shouldn’t we?”

But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” 16They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”

“Caesar’s,” they replied.

17Then Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”

The didactic teaching appears clear. Jesus acknowledged that Caesar - the rightful authority in Rome - had a certain jurisdictional power. Despite him being a despot (which Christ does not excuse), and despite Rome being wicked, they indeed had authority to do a job. Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 tell us what that job is, which is “punishing evil and rewarding good.” This includes the management of whatever is necessary to accomplish those God-given tasks, including in this case, taxation.

However, Christ follows this up by adding a catchy little caveat, “Render unto God, what is God’s.” In other words, God has his own jurisdiction. A Jesus Juke here would be easy, pointing out that God’s jurisdiction is over all the earth, but that would miss the point that God has delegated part of his jurisdiction to governing authorities below him.

God’s jurisdiction, classical Christian teaching suggests, is the First Table of his Law. He will execute his decrees and judgments - even in this life, as well as the life to come - concerning worship, idolatry, blasphemy, and sabbathing (if you’re a New Covenant Theologian or typical Dispensationalist, just ignore that last one, lol).

Government’s jurisdiction is the Second Table of his Law, and should enforce laws against murder, theft, perjury, adultery, and greed that leads to crime. They should use the General Equity, in the Mosaic Judicial Code, that demonstrates the severity of the crime should dictate the severity of punishment. Restitution must be paid. Blood must be shed for blood, and so on.

The Christian Nationalist might say, “But that doesn’t really change anything in the status quo.” Oh, I disagree!

If I’m to not waver from this interpretation of Scripture, this means that adultery should be criminal. And why shouldn’t it? Does a marriage license not include the state as a witness, and authorizing power? I’d submit that adultery is a sin (or crime) against the state, which should be prosecuted. “Gay marriage,” should be criminalized. And further, applying the principle of General Equity, homosexuality and especially gay propaganda, should be criminalized as a sexual crime in violation of the Seventh Commandment.

There is a lot - and I mean, a lot - for Christian Nationalists to work with in my interpretive view (which is not a novel view, and I think has been historically held by western civilizations). There’s much work to do on issues like abortion, euthanasia, sexual perversities, theft (which is what, at its heart, what socialism is), and greed (which includes the redistribution of wealth and concepts like White Guilt).

From a practical standpoint, I can’t even imagine the colossal cluster-bomb that would befall us if the government was suddenly distracted from those things, and tasked with enforcing the First Table, with government’s typical failure to do anything well.

In my debate with McDurmon, I tried to point out that Theonomy simply did not mesh with his views (which he held at the time) of Libertarianism. Those things go together like oil and water. It’s like saying you’re a pro-life Democrat. It doesn’t work. But, the principle of limited government absolutely works with a view of Second Table-only enforcement. We still maintain liberty, to do whatever we want to do, so long as it does not infringe on another’s rights (as all Second Table violations do).

But then, without First Table enforcement, from where does a Christian Nation come? The answer is, bold proclamations of Jesus Christ as King, Christians at the helm of government, ceremonial honor given to Christ in our civic functions (as we always have had, but much more explicitly than happens today), and using the Christian Scriptures to define what is evil, and what is good.

EPILOGUE

I’m quite aware that I’ve been a tad rowdy in years past, and I’m content raising sheep and working a secular job, and appreciate the anonymity I’ve enjoyed lately. I do not regret sleepless nights, wondering what hate somebody is throwing at me online. I approach this topic in recognition of that, and do so cautiously.

I desire peace with all men. That includes those on both sides of this issue. I love the central figures in the Christian Nationalism debate, on both sides (not so much on the side of the leftists masquerading as conservatives, forget them). I’ve only got like 6 friends left, and I don’t want to be at odds with any of them.

To those who oppose Christian Nationalism, let me encourage you, that if our brothers are wrong, they will abandon it. I’ve said so many times, “Nobody stays a theonomist for long.” At a certain point, I stopped debating them. I missed their fellowship. Convinced that they’re believers, I just set my watch and didn’t spike the football on them when they would inevitably but reluctantly admit they were now “General Equity Theonomists,” abandoning the core tenets of Rushdoony. I’d apply that to Christian Nationalists as well.

I’m ever the more convinced that “the Holy Spirit leads us to the knowledge of truth.” Sooner of later, bad ideas get sifted out, and good ideas get refined.

And to the Christian Nationalists, I would say, I love you guys. I really do. I admire your tenacity and fearlessness and your righteous motivations. Let’s come together on some things.

And to all, I’d say that I hope I’ve modeled for you how disagreement can be done, without anathematizing your opponent, or considering friends to be enemies. And this is not a condemnation of anyone’s tone, lest the wafting smell of my hypocrisy reach into the heavens, and cause the angels to wrinkle their noses.

Peace out. I’m gonna go feed the chickens.

PS. I forgot to mention, at the Bulldogmatic Polemics Round Table tonight, we’re discussing the limits of elders’ authority to censor thought. Make your way over to Protestia to check that out, and join me and David discussing this in the Zoom.