The Ideology of Christian Nationalism vs. the Theology of the New Testament

Steikes’ definition is pretty good…

For those unfamiliar with the term, Christian nationalism is the belief and hope that, by God’s grace, through political means, Christians can restore their country to the kind of nation it once was when its laws and customs reflected a common belief in the gospel and the teachings of Scripture.

There are several components here that reveal the problems with this idea…

1. “through political means”
2. “restore.. it once was”
3. “common belief in the gospel…”

Item 3 is pure fantasy. Though there was once a high regard for the Bible and some kind of Creator God at the core of American culture, you have to go back to an isolated colony or two to find ‘common belief in the gospel.’

Item 2 is nuts because item 3 is a fantasy, but also because it carries a ton a baggage. What I’ve lived long enough to see more than once is groups of Christians idealizing a snapshot of the culture at a point in history then assuming pretty much everything different from that time is bad. But this is never the case because (a) That snapshot period wasn’t really that great. It wasn’t perfect. (b) Even a culture with a lot of negative change going on also has positive change that you can see if you look for it.

Also, the cultural snapshot that’s being idealized seems kind of arbitrary. Why that period? Why not earlier? Why not later? Why that place and not some other? (Why aren’t the CNs working to restore Europe’s Holy Roman Empire to the U.S.? … Well some are, I guess! But the question is still valid. Why HRE?)

Maybe these questions have answers but champions of ‘restore’ to the ideal never bother to answer them beyond the idealizing itself. “Because everything was so much better then!”

I’m all for trying to rebuild some Christian worldview (broadly speaking) back into the culture, but this cannot be accomplished coercively (contra Item 1). It requires winning the debate(s) over and over and in a winsome way. The truths we’re talking about are not exactly the gospel, but need adorning, nonetheless (Titus 2:10).

Being someone who also tends to miss prior times when things in many ways were not so complicated (though other times had their own issues), my go-to verse for some time has been Ecc. 7:10 - “Say not, ‘Why were the former days better than these?’ For it is not from wisdom that you ask this.”

I think it’s undeniable that all of us will experience times in our lives that are NOT as good as prior times were. The Bible reminds us that we are where God has put us and where we need to be. That’s not always an easy lesson to take to heart. That shouldn’t prevent us from trying to make things better where we can, but as Aaron pointed out, it will take convincing, not coercion.

No doubt the "good old days" are too often viewed with rose colored glasses. Often the vices were still there, but just hidden. One of the reasons they were hidden was because Judeo/Christian values had more of a "peer pressure" influence than they do today. I want to be careful that our concerns about Christian Nationalism as defined above does not become an excuse to mock or minimize the value of Judeo/Christian values on a society. I would feel more comfortable in these discussion if some of the posters here on SI clarified their positions on the value of Judeo/Christian values.

I would feel more comfortable in these discussion if some of the posters here on SI clarified their positions on the value of Judeo/Christian values.

I'm not sure what you mean by this statement.

Do we believe Judeo/Christian values are part and parcel of white privilege?

Do we believe Judeo/Christian values are inextricably linked to conquest, colonization, and the oppression of marginalized communities?

What exactly do you want to know?

I understood JD as asking whether or no he thought Judeo/Christian values contain value for society as a whole; that is, can exert a positive influence on the lives and standard of living for even those who do not espouse the Christian religion--apart from the questions of Christian nationalism.



To that I would give a resounding "yes." Frankly, most traditional systems of value from around the world would be better than what we currently have in the US. And I say this as someone who lives in a Muslim majority country.



As for the question of white privilege, can anyone seriously argue that the conditions of our fellow black Americans has improved with all this racial reckoning of the past decade?



Don't misunderstand me. Much of the broader awakening to the parallel lives of African Americans has been good and necessary. BUT it seems to have come simultaneous to the collapse of much of their culture and way of life. The black family of the 60s, 70s, and even earlier was far healthier and stronger than their families of today, and it's not even close.



Something collapsed that helped hold things together, and blacks have suffered more than anyone.

As for the question of white privilege, can anyone seriously argue that the conditions of our fellow black Americans has improved with all this racial reckoning of the past decade?

Don't misunderstand me. Much of the broader awakening to the parallel lives of African Americans has been good and necessary. BUT it seems to have come simultaneous to the collapse of much of their culture and way of life. The black family of the 60s, 70s, and even earlier was far healthier and stronger than their families of today, and it's not even close.

Something collapsed that helped hold things together, and blacks have suffered more than anyone.

As you may know, I oversee a non-profit whose mission is to "Break the fatherless cycle in urban communities through the transformative gospel of Christ." In our particular urban context, most of the youth and families we serve are African-Americans. When I first began ministering to at-risk, under-resourced youth in my neighborhood, many of which were fatherless, I viewed black culture/way of life very similarly. But, the more I observed first hand and the more I did actual research, the more I realized my perceptions were not necessarily reality. Don't get me wrong. The breakdown of the family/Fatherlessness is a central pressing social issue/pathology in the black community that needs addressing and corrected (I would also say that it is a central pressing social issue/pathology among whites, hispanics, etc... as well). But statistics skewed by politicians, media, culture war warriors, etc.. do not show reality when it comes to fatherlessness/breakdown of the family. Let me attempt to dispel some racial/social stereotypes when it comes to fatherlessness/family breakdown within the black experience.

1. Black out of wedlock births and single-family households do not necessarily mean that the father isn't significantly present. In fact, during the past few decades, there have been several studies showing that black fathers who do not live with their children (non-resident) saw their children more days per month, spent 1+ hours with the child more frequently, engaged more frequently in father-child activities, showed higher shared responsibility, and demonstrated better coparenting with mothers than their White and Hispanic counterparts. During the past 30+ years of our ministry, I've observed that my students that grew up without a father are much more likely to do everything they can to be significantly involved in their child's life than what their abent father did, even if they made moral choices that led to them to become non-resident.

2. Parental Alienation where the mother attempts to keep her child/children from the father is a cause of fatherlessness in the black community. I've seen countless incidents where the mother retaliates against the father because she feels angry and betrayed so she denies parental visits and attempts to sabotage the father's relationship with his child. In the 1980/1990s, the father often just gave up, especially because the family courts weren't as father friendly back then. Even in the past decade, I've seen several instances where it took up to 5 years for dad to be regularly present due to the mother's barriers and the court finally seeing the whole picture.

3. Dead-Beat Dad Stereotypes Leading to Bad Laws. The dead beat dad stereotype that wants nothing to do with his child/children and won't support his child/children has led to child support laws with some bad unintended consequences. When poor fathers get behind on child support, most of whom are unskilled, non-college educated non-resident fathers, many states will punish them with 1-2 months of jail time leading to loss of employment. My home state of Michigan punished fathers who were behind on their child support this way until 2017. Several young fathers in my neighborhood, after several times of going to jail because of falling behind on child support payments and losing their employment often turned to selling drugs to supplement their income, which leads to the next point.

4. Over-Criminalization and Over-Incarceration has led to more fatherlessness in the black community in urban/impoverished neighborhoods. During the War on Drugs era (1985-2010) many of my students grew up without a father because their father was serving 5-10 years for a crimes they didn't commit or for crimes they did commit but should've only served a year or two and probation. A deeply flawed criminal justice system, with its unaccountable prosecutors, overworked public defenders, unethical plea-bargaining, and just plain bad laws contributed to fatherlessness as well. Many of my former students' fathers took plea bargains when they weren't guilty because they were too poor to obtain a good lawyer and didn't trust the PD because they didn't want 20+ years in prison for between 5-10 charges brought on them by the prosecution. Even with the plea bargaining, they missed out on a significant amount of their child's life.

5. Much of the stereotypes portrayed about black culture in the media is not reality in middle-class/upper-middle class black families, many of which live in suburban communities. One of the men I discipled became middle-class and now lives in the suburbs with his blended family. He sends his teen boys to a fairly large Christian school in Grand Rapids that is predominantly white. His sons constantly have to educate their white classmates who attempt to use black slang they've seen in movies or from hip-hop artists or dropping the N***a word... none of which are appropriate around them. His sons have had teen girls at their school who've made hard passes towards them sexually because they assumed his sons were sexually active because of what they see in the media about black culture.

6. Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACES). In our urban community, so many of the students we mentored and discipled were exposed and traumatized as a child through several of these ACES. Physical, emotional, and sexual abuse, physical and emotional neglect, exposure to a family member that was addicted to drugs/alcohol, had one or more family members who were incarcerated, saw their father or boyfriend physically and emotionally abuse their mother, had a parent who had significant mental health issues or were exposed to violence/murder, or was dad deprived. These ACES and the trauma they bring contribute significantly to the breakdown of the family. Without good counseling, a healthy support network, and Jesus, those with ACES will continue the breakdown cycle.

Even with dispelling some of these stereotypes, our ministry realizes that broken families with non-residental fathers who are involved with their children is still not the Biblical standard. Instead of only being the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff where we have to help pick up the pieces and address issues of the family breakdown (i.e. parental alienation, ACES), we also point people to Christ, Scripture, and healthy models of parenting/family best practices as the guardrail at the top of the cliff in the context of local churches. Modeling and promoting healthy marriages in Christ with loving, healthy relationship between the father and mother in our neighborhood so that the next generation views a Christ-centered marriage as their goal is part of what we are attempting to accomplish in order address the breakdown of the family and fatherlessness among those in our ministry, most of which are African-American.

Christian nationalism seems to be whatever an author or speaker wants it to be. Here’s what seems undeniable to me:

First, there was a time in our country where there was a generally accepted moral standard that is higher than today. It doesn’t require a common belief in the gospel to have that. The fact that it may have been outward only is irrelevant. It existed and it was better for society.

Second, our civil society is based in large part on laws that are a part and parcel of a theistic worldview. Laws against theft, rape, murder, perjury, etc. are all based on the existence of God and a transcendent moral order that stems from that. Holding those positions doesn’t require one to acknowledge God.

Third, we should desire rulers that lead and rule in accordance with this moral order. Anything else is a corruption of justice that should be rejected by us all. Again, it doesn’t require Christianity to hold that, though it is hard to justify without Christianity. Aside from a transcendent moral order that stems from God, we are left to be ruled by the opinions of powerful people.

...There was a time in our country where there was a generally accepted moral standard that is higher than today. It doesn’t require a common belief in the gospel to have that. The fact that it may have been outward only is irrelevant. It existed and it was better for society.

Did that "generally accepted moral standard that is higher than today" include egregious racism? Most definitely. So, the judgment that society was better under this "generally accepted moral standard" depends on who you talk to.

That leads us back to white privilege and the oppression of marginalized communities.

I think you are confusing two things that used to exist as being integral to each other when they are not. A “generally accepted moral standard that is higher than today” doesn’t include egregious racism. That racism existed as well, but I would disagree strongly that eliminating that racism requires elimination of the moral standard.

According to whom? According to history. This isn’t particularly controversial, is it? It is fairly well accepted even by those who don’t like the moral compass of the past. They acknowledge that it was different and more in line with conservative values.. Yes there were times of egregious racism. The claim that the moral compass was substantially better is not the claim that it was a perfect society. That is not something I said nor would I ever say that. There were other problems as well. But the reality is that sexuality was viewed far differently in past decades. We all know that basic civic life was different. Marriage and family were different. You could send your children to public school and not worry about them being taught that they could be any sex they wanted to be or be exposed to those who thought that. You could send your child to school in not worry about The opposite sex being in the locker room. Or on the wrestling team. There was a day when it was commonly accepted that a mom and dad were good for kids. Two moms or two dads was rejected as out of order. Those days are gone.

To put it a different way, why doesn’t the modern left want to go back to those days? The answer is because it contradicts their values. They know it was different. And their number one campaign slogan is essentially that the conservatives want to take us back to those days. Why? Because everybody knows those days were different.

Bringing up white privilege or oppression is ridiculous frankly. It has nothing to do with this.

Did that "generally accepted moral standard that is higher than today" include egregious racism? Most definitely. So, the judgment that society was better under this "generally accepted moral standard" depends on who you talk to.

Really? Why don't we ask Joel here if many of the inner city folk he works with think that society on the whole is more moral and better today than it was in their youth.



I'll be waiting.

According to whom? According to history. This isn’t particularly controversial, is it? It is fairly well accepted even by those who don’t like the moral compass of the past. They acknowledge that it was different and more in line with conservative values..

Meanwhile, as white people were apparently living sexually upstanding lives, black men were being lynched by their "conservative moral" neighbors for even talking to a white woman. Their money and property were stolen, they were subject to Black Codes and Jim Crow laws, they couldn't eat in the same restaurants or drink at the same water fountains as whites, they were disenfranchised at the polls, they weren't allowed to live in certain neighborhoods, they were denied bank loans, etc. etc. All with the government's tacit approval.

I'm sorry, Larry. Your version of a more moral American history is blind to the facts. How can you claim a society is morally superior when it treated certain groups of people as subhuman? Is your moral lens only focused on sexuality?

Why don’t we ask Joel here if many of the inner city folk he works with think that society on the whole is more moral and better today than it was in their youth.

Any time we ask whether something is “better” we are asking for a moral judgment. We must assess whether someone has the moral foundation to make that judgment. I mean no reflection at all on Joel’s friends. But not everyone has the same judgment ability. Again there’s a reason the left doesn’t want to go back to those times. Perhaps let’s ask if it is different, and if so, how.

THoward, I am going to try to be charitable here and assume you didn’t read what I said. Because I said nothing of the sort and when you brought it up the first time, I pointed out that I said nothing of the sort and never would. At this point, you are being dishonest. You have been told the truth. And you said it anyway. Do not attribute to me views that I do not hold, have not espoused, have pointed out that I do not espouse, and have affirmed that I would never espouse. You don’t have to like or agree with my position, but do not misrepresent it.

And no, it isn’t limited to sexuality. That’s just a strange comment. There was a day you didn’t have to worry about guns or weapons in schools. There was a basic code of honesty and civil decency. There was a basic respect for other people, particularly women. Even in Congress there was a time when people on opposite sides of issues had personal relationships with each other. But it is hard to imagine that Adam Schiff and Jim Jordan could share dinner together. It’s a different world.

Yes, racism is evil. But even in those times, there was a more intact family structure in urban areas. That’s not a justification or an excuse. It’s simply a difference.

However you respond, do not misrepresent what I said.

Any time we ask whether something is “better” we are asking for a moral judgment. We must assess whether someone has the moral foundation to make that judgment. I mean no reflection at all on Joel’s friends. But not everyone has the same judgment ability. Again there’s a reason the left doesn’t want to go back to those times. Perhaps let’s ask if it is different, and if so, how.

My point, Larry, is that although my pov is more limited than Joel's friends, I do have black friends from the inner city. And they have told me that it's hell now compared to what it was when they were kids. So I already know what the typical answer would be.



One friend, who joined a gang in Chicago growing up, told me that when he was young, there was a code against killing children. He said that just doesn't exist anymore, and he's terrified to even visit his family there half the time.