Gottesdienst

View Original

On Christian Nationalism

Larry Beane

“Christian Nationalism” is the latest fear-porn slur by both believers and unbelievers from both Left and Right.

The latest manifestation of this phenomenon was an MSNBC and Politico reporter Heidi Przbyla, who expressed shock that some people - clearly “extremists” - believe that rights come from God and not from government. Oh, the humanity! Either this woman (a fifty-year old veteran reporter on all things political) is unfamiliar with the text of the Declaration of Independence, or she knows what it says, but is being duplicitous on account of an agenda. Until very recently, every fifth grader could quote Jefferson’s statement in the founding document of the United States that:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Whether one agrees with Jefferson or not (who was, of course, a Deist and not a Christian), this is not a new, radical, extreme doctrine. Until five minutes ago, the idea that rights do not come from government but are rather a natural feature of being human was mainstream American thought that crossed all political boundaries. But of course, yesterday’s normal is today’s extremism, and Idioocracy has long since become a documentary.

Roman Catholic bishop Robert Barron responded and expressed disagreement with Przbyla, doubling down on the notion that rights come from God, and not from government.

Because of this, Barron was called by liberal Roman Catholics - you guessed it - a “Christian Nationalist.” A lot of Roman Catholics then aped each other on social media, indignantly repeating the talking point that “Roman Catholicism is incompatible with Christian Nationalism” (rinse, repeat). And this is particularly ironic and funny, because the pope is literally the head of state of a Christian nation - a nation with a flag, national anthem, citizenship, passports, a national bank, embassies and diplomats (including diplomatic immunity), membership in the UN, and yes, borders. They also have a border wall that was built to keep Muslims out. These same Roman Catholics who denounce “Christian Nationalism” have the Vatican flag on display in their churches (not to mention the flag of the United States), and they typically advocate for open borders and oppose border walls and immigration control (unlike the Vatican). I guess it’s okay when they do it, though.

Leftist “Christians” (Roman Catholic and otherwise) are also “Christian Nationalists,” as they define Christianity not in terms of doctrine, but rather in their fantasy that Christianity is simply “kindness” defined as “acceptance of everyone” (read: “sexual deviants”). They also define Christianity as congruent with the whole of Leftist politics (including redistributive economics, mass immigration, and of course, abortion). And according to their own view of what Christianity is, they seek laws that enforce it. So they have a view of what Christianity is, and they want the state to create laws to put their understanding of Christianity into practice. But that’s different, I’ve been told. I see. That must be good Christian Nationalism, because they’re doing it the right way. See how that works?

Many conservative Christians - including many in the LCMS - join the bandwagon in a blanket denunciation of Christian Nationalism without consideration of what it is and how we define it. Yet these same folks in the LCMS sing the praises of Frederick the Wise and John the Steadfast. These princes were Lutheran Christian rulers of Lutheran Christian nations. Indeed, our Lutheran Service Book sanctoral calendar commemorates several “Christian Rulers” from history. We do not denounce them - not yet, anyway. Today’s conservative Lutherans also lobby government for laws that reflect our Christian confession and moral worldview (as well we should). Why wouldn’t Christians support laws in accordance with Christian ethics? This very thing is what Leftists consider to be toxic Christian Nationalism.

To be sure, there are good Christian Nationalisms and bad Christian Nationalisms. For Lutherans living under the Interim of 1548, this was a bad form of Christian Nationalism. The same is true for Lutherans living under Calvin’s Geneva.

There are some on the Right who say that there is no such thing as religious liberty. Of course, God doesn’t recognize the freedom to reject Him without consequence. But God does recognize the freedom of human beings to reject Him as a quality of being human. We are not robots. And government is not God. One problem of bad Christian Nationalism is that not everyone who uses the title “Christian” is one, nor do they recognize all who claim to be Christian as Christians. In a real-world application of Christian Nationalism of the kind that some on the Right promote, they themselves would end up, like Robespierre, hoist by their own petardic guillotine.

For example, it is not uncommon to hear the Reformed accuse Lutherans of being idolaters: “bread worshipers.” In a Christian nation ruled by a Calvinist authority, what would happen to Lutheran “idolaters”? Nearly thirty years ago, I posed that question to a co-worker: a Christian Nationalist who was a Covenanter Presbyterian. Yes, he accused me of being a “bread worshiper” and said that Lutheran churches should be illegal. I asked him to join me in a thought experiment. He was the king of America, with full power. What would he do with me? Would he kill me? Well, no. He would just seize our churches and outlaw them (like the Bolsheviks did). What if we continued to meet in homes and practice our “bread worship”? Well, he would arrest us. What if we continued to hold to this view, and even propagate it, in prison? Well, in such a case, he would have to execute us. But rest assured, it would only be as a last resort.

So there it is.

And this is why we can see why some people are leery of Christian Nationalism, and it needs to be narrowly defined in any discussion. I would not want to live under the tyranny of a Presbyterian government that would bulldoze our churches and execute us in prison. Would a Baptist ruler outlaw baptizing babies? Would an Assemblies of God nation outlaw our cessationist views on “speaking in tongues”? Would a Roman Catholic prince re-introduce the stake for us Lutherans? There are indeed some Christian Nationalists who would outlaw Lutheranism. They did in the past, and they would do it again. So be careful of what you ask for.

There are some on the Right who argue that there is no such thing as religious freedom, and government should not tolerate false doctrine. And if you ask a group of right-wing Christian Nationalists which confession of Christianity should govern, it would be theirs, of course. I have read Lutherans express the desire that Baptists should lose custody of their children for not baptizing them. And conversely, we Lutherans are considered heretics by just about everyone else: certainly by Rome and Geneva. We are considered idolaters by Geneva for our doctrine of the Real Presence, and we are considered outside of Christendom by Rome for denying papal authority over us. Lutherans would be persecuted in just about every form of Christian Nationalism that does not accept at least some degree of religious liberty.

This is not to say that all Christian Nationalism is bad, or that we should ape our secular and Leftist lords and masters in a knee-jerk denunciation of Christian Nationalism, past, present, and future. It’s important to speak about this issue with clarity and with precision.

The Gottesdienst Crowd podcast (hosted by Fr. Jason Braaten) has done the following thoughtful episodes on Christian Nationalism, namely interviews with:

Given that we are in an election year, expect the Christian Nationalism fear porn to increase to a fever pitch.