Be Careful When Defending or Opposing Christian Nationalism
Same vocabulary, different dictionary.
A lot of younger evangelicals would readily say that they oppose Christian Nationalism. They cringe at the idea of Donald Trump and Jesus conflated into a single-idea movement. I understand it. People all too often combine a sentimental, uncritical, patriotism with their understanding of biblical Christianity. A proper view of the relationship between our faith and our government must be more nuanced than that.
But when you use the term Christian Nationalism, please understand that others define historically orthodox Christianity as Christian Nationalism. Consider an article written by Bryan Massingale who contends that White Christian Nationalism needs to be called out this election cycle. Here are the identifying marks of White Christian Nationalism according to Massingale.
- Advocating Christian symbols on public property.
- Calling on voters to Make America Great Again.
- Advocating any connection between being a patriotic American and being a good Christian.
- Using biblical language to oppose LGBTQ+ bills and legislation.
- Opposing legislation in favor of gender-conforming treatment for trans young people.
He claims that Christian Nationalism, as he defines it, has been theological cover since this nation’s founding, to justify slavery.
There is so much error in what Massingale says, that it is hard to know where to start. Yes, many people tried to argue that slavery was biblically justifiable, but the widespread opposition to slavery came from people who argued even more effectively that the Bible does NOT justify it. William Wilberforce, John Newton in England, and a host of theologians in the US, argued that slavery must be abolished on grounds of biblical justice and successfully worked to abolish it. The United States inherited 250 years of institutional slavery at its founding and managed to eradicate it in 80 years through great hardship and bloodshed.
Keep your eye on the main thing.
However, the bigger problem with Massingale’s article is his definition of the cross and its purpose.
Any version of Christianity that wittingly or unwittingly colludes with dominating and oppressive power betrays the very core of the Christian faith tradition: the cross. The cross symbolizes a faith tradition defined by speaking truth to, and resisting, unjust and subjugating power. The crucifixion was a sign of Jesus’ opposition to such power. It indicated his commitment to a future where the sacred dignity and personhood of every single human being is valued and respected, without exception.
What Massingale is advocating as mainstream Christian theology is Liberation Theology made popular in the Marxist revolutions in South America in the 1970s and 80s [i]. It substitutes the genuine gospel with a gospel of social justice. However, it is not just a substitute, but a denial of the biblical gospel.
It denies the universal sinfulness of mankind. It denies the need for redemption. It denies biblical law, mandates, and morality. It denies the deity of Jesus Christ. It denies the blood atonement. It makes Jesus to be a prototypical Lenin, fighting for the downtrodden and oppressed. It is every bit as evil as Satan’s lie in the garden.
True Christianity understands and acknowledges the sinfulness of every human being. Our problem is not social, it is personal, it is within (Romans 3:10-23). True Christianity is not about liberating the masses, but rather about saving individual souls from the guilt of their own sin (Romans 5:1-11). While injustice matters to God, Jesus’ cross work does not save us from the unjust actions of oppressors but from the wrath of God Himself upon our sins (Romans 5:8-11).
If saving the poor and downtrodden from oppression was the purpose of the cross, then Jesus’ work on the cross was a miserable failure. He did not end such oppression and Jesus’ followers became particular targets of persecution and martyrdom.
The gospel is not white, because the world for which it is intended includes all people.
Biblically faithful theology has nothing to do with “whiteness.” Jesus was not Anglo. The first-century Apostles took this gospel to India, and Africa as well as Great Britain and central Europe. Whatever evil our white ancestors may have committed was done in spite of this gospel, not because of it, and in many cases, it was the gospel that rescued evil people from its clutches. Consider the story of John Newton, author of the most popular Christian hymn of all time—Amazing Grace. Newton was a slave trader and murderer. Social movements did not change him, the gospel did, and partly as a result of his influence on Wilberforce, slavery was abolished in England.
It is the tactic of Satan to call the mercy of God something evil.
We must not conflate biblical Christianity and political conservativism. They are not the same thing. However, we also cannot deny biblical Christianity because of some overlap that it might have with many biblical morals that political conservatism also espouses.
There is nothing unchristian about loving your country, being thankful for it, praying for political leaders, and leading an obedient and quiet life (Romans 13:1-11, 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12, 1 Timothy 2:1-2).
God has spoken. We have His word. We cannot twist it to serve our own purposes regardless of our political persuasion. This is what many of the critics of Christian Nationalism do—exactly the same thing they accuse the Christian Nationalists of doing.
____________________________________________
[i] Some claim that Liberation Theology was actually an invention of the Soviets during the old war. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/31919/former-soviet-spy-we-created-liberation-theology