Christian Nationalism

[Ernie]

I didn't forget, I just held back a little to leave room for people to think and draw their own conclusions. But yes, I agree history is repleat with additional examples of this phenomenon. God's people do not like living vulnerably in the world.

I view people arguing in favor of state-imposed secular liberalism to not really be substantially different than those stumping for Christian Nationalism (whatever that is - it appears to be a fringe movement; R. J. Rushdoony, David Chilton, and Gary North are all deceased). If anything, the most ardent critics of "Christian Nationalism" on the Christian side of things make impassioned please for how good a the secular liberal state is, and why as Christians we should definitely want states to be secular and liberal.

I find the whole exercise quite revealing. In my Bible, it doesn't tell us to advocate for any particular sort of government, outside of a few vague commands like "honor the king".

I think it is possible to speak out against both Christian Nationalism and state-imposed secular liberalism while not advocating for governments that make it hard for true Christians, and while still honoring the king.

[Ernie]

We haven’t forgotten. We just realize we aren’t the only ones. That all Christian groups have been persecuted just like Jesus. Even today there’s the torture and murder of Christians in Africa, etc.

In what way do you see all Christian groups having been persecuted like Jesus?
I see many Christian groups experiencing the consequences of wrong doing. I only see a few get persecuted for the sorts of things that Jesus was persecuted for.

[JohnH]

I think it is possible to speak out against both Christian Nationalism and state-imposed secular liberalism while not advocating for governments that make it hard for true Christians, and while still honoring the king.

I agree that it is.

However, what I disagree with is those who speak against Christian nationalism and praise state-imposed secular liberalism.

I would consider "not advocating for governments that make it hard for true Christians" to be in the same domain as generally "not advocating for governments to not operate their governments by Christian principles". I don't think we should cynically try to promote a form of government that happens to be cozy for Anabaptists but is bad for our neighbors, either.

[JohnL]

We haven’t forgotten. We just realize we aren’t the only ones. That all Christian groups have been persecuted just like Jesus. Even today there’s the torture and murder of Christians in Africa, etc.

In what way do you see all Christian groups having been persecuted like Jesus? I see many Christian groups experiencing the consequences of wrong doing. I only see a few get persecuted for the sorts of things that Jesus was persecuted for.

At some point in their histories all Christian groups were persecuted. Persecution of Christians goes on today like I mentioned. Sometimes it’s arrest for silent prayers too close to an abortion clinic or even harassment for putting up a cross on a residence owned by the Christian.
Jesus was persecuted by two ruling govts. The leadership of the Jews and of course the Romans. We try to follow Jesus and though we’re not perfect like Jesus we represent the same threat to any world-based govt because our allegiance is to God and not to man and govts. Christians are called by the label “infidels” by Muslim militias and terrorists. China sees Christian's obedience to God as a threat because the communist govt wants control and obedience before all else. So labels are used to create an enemy. A foe. A threat to the power of their govts and non-Christian beliefs.

It’s a lot to sort out for sure. I’m not sure I’m communicating my thoughts adequately but to put a big summary on it I see the labeling of groups as a part of the power-seeking problem that seeks to divide and conquer.

[Neto]

I think it is possible to speak out against both Christian Nationalism and state-imposed secular liberalism while not advocating for governments that make it hard for true Christians, and while still honoring the king.

I agree that it is.

However, what I disagree with is those who speak against Christian nationalism and praise state-imposed secular liberalism.
....

If anyone here has "praised state-imposed secular liberalism" I have missed it. I do not favor Christian Nationalism, but it is not a political opinion. It is an opinion based on the damage it can do within the Church. Not viewing Christian Nationalism with favor is not the equivalent of favoring secular liberalism. Looking at the Scriptures, I think that God's preference, his standard, if you will, is that all human government SHOULD have a moral standard that coincides with what is taught in Scripture. I just don't think that the Church should go about trying to force that to happen through political involvement. It is, however, the gauge by which all human conduct is 'graded'.

[HondurasKeiser]

Fourth century, Constantine - emblematic christianity
Fifth century, Augustine - institutional christianity
Eighth century, Charlemagne - imperial christianity

Each was possible only by building on the foundations of the predecessor.

You're forgetting that the chain doesn't end there. Charlemagne's institution of the Holy Roman Empire was the first Great Reign. Otto Von Bismark was the second Great Reign. This long line of tradition culminated in a third Great Reign (or "Reich" as the newest inheritor called it) that showed the world the end result of this whole project of Christian Nationalism. Those who held on to culture and identity outside of the National Christian one (especially Jews, who lived in "Christian lands" but clung to a non-Christian identity) were, to say the least, poorly treated.

Those who know history know that "Christian Nationalism" is about the farthest thing from the Kingdom that Jesus envisions for us.

I’m lost as to the significance of Chancellor Bismarck as it relates to state imposed Christianity or how one draws a line from Charlemagne to the Kaisers or why that matters. What’s more it’s a bananas to suppose that the Nazis were animated Christian Nationalism.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

I’m lost as to the significance of Chancellor Bismarck as it relates to state imposed Christianity or how one draws a line from Charlemagne to the Kaisers or why that matters. What’s more it’s a bananas to suppose that the Nazis were animated Christian Nationalism.

I'm just reciting the heritage story claimed by the Germans in the early 20th century. Their telling of history was that Germany had had 2 great reigns, or Reichs, or empires. The personal history of Otto von Bismark is fascinating. He had a radical conversion to Jesus and struggled a bit with the idea of being a Christian and also a political leader. Luckily, the state church (Lutheran) gave him theological tools to reconcile the two opposing roles or Christian and "Emperor."

It's important to not rewrite history from an outsider perspective. Yes, from our 21st Century American Christian perspective, imagining the Nazi government as "Christian Nationalism" seems bananas, but that's because we have had nearly a century to propagandize that era in Germany as so bad and evil our minds can't handle it being "Christian". But the truth was, from THEIR perspective, yes, they were Christian Nationalists.

We hear the radio addresses by Hitler promoting Christian family values, or see the Nazi soldiers wear a belt buckle that says "Gott Mitt Uns" and hear the myriad of Biblical, theological, appeals to a Christian culture used as arguments to go for a "final solution to the Jewish problem" and we feel a sort of cognitive dissonance. We apply the "no true Scotsman" argument to the matter. "Well... it's bananas to think they are Christian Nationalists because they aren't TRUE Christians!" Yes, that's the point. What Christian Nationalist in history has been a good example of a "true" Christian? Ever?

What’s more it’s a bananas to suppose that the Nazis were animated Christian Nationalism.

Whether you want to believe it or not, that is what THEY claimed to be. It was also how they captured the heart and won the consent of an entire nation. This story of the 3 Reichs of Charlemagne, Bismark, and Hitler is not my history, it was what they claimed. You can call it propaganda, and you'd be right (to an extent, almost all history is propaganda). That's not what matters. Today's Christian Nationalists say things that are just as "bananas" (like "America was founded as a Christian Nation"), and that's the point. Christian Nationalism has always been a bananas idea from Constantine, Augustine, Charlamagne, Bismark, Hitler, and Doug Wilson. It's always been a bananas idea because it goes against the gospel of the Kingdom.

[barnhart]

I see two types of Christian Nationalism, one from without and one from within. The outside type captures the passions and heart of cultural Christians who were never committed to discipleship but like the identity and cultural stability. The inside type captures the hearts of the discontented and worried from within and, in my mind at least, poses the greater threat to the church.

[Szdfan]

I’m lost as to the significance of Chancellor Bismarck as it relates to state imposed Christianity or how one draws a line from Charlemagne to the Kaisers or why that matters. What’s more it’s a bananas to suppose that the Nazis were animated Christian Nationalism.

I'm just reciting the heritage story claimed by the Germans in the early 20th century. Their telling of history was that Germany had had 2 great reigns, or Reichs, or empires. The personal history of Otto von Bismark is fascinating. He had a radical conversion to Jesus and struggled a bit with the idea of being a Christian and also a political leader. Luckily, the state church (Lutheran) gave him theological tools to reconcile the two opposing roles or Christian and "Emperor."

It's important to not rewrite history from an outsider perspective. Yes, from our 21st Century American Christian perspective, imagining the Nazi government as "Christian Nationalism" seems bananas, but that's because we have had nearly a century to propagandize that era in Germany as so bad and evil our minds can't handle it being "Christian". But the truth was, from THEIR perspective, yes, they were Christian Nationalists.

We hear the radio addresses by Hitler promoting Christian family values, or see the Nazi soldiers wear a belt buckle that says "Gott Mitt Uns" and hear the myriad of Biblical, theological, appeals to a Christian culture used as arguments to go for a "final solution to the Jewish problem" and we feel a sort of cognitive dissonance. We apply the "no true Scotsman" argument to the matter. "Well... it's bananas to think they are Christian Nationalists because they aren't TRUE Christians!" Yes, that's the point. What Christian Nationalist in history has been a good example of a "true" Christian? Ever?

What’s more it’s a bananas to suppose that the Nazis were animated Christian Nationalism.

Whether you want to believe it or not, that is what THEY claimed to be. It was also how they captured the heart and won the consent of an entire nation. This story of the 3 Reichs of Charlemagne, Bismark, and Hitler is not my history, it was what they claimed. You can call it propaganda, and you'd be right (to an extent, almost all history is propaganda). That's not what matters. Today's Christian Nationalists say things that are just as "bananas" (like "America was founded as a Christian Nation"), and that's the point. Christian Nationalism has always been a bananas idea from Constantine, Augustine, Charlamagne, Bismark, Hitler, and Doug Wilson. It's always been a bananas idea because it goes against the gospel of the Kingdom.

I think this “heritage narrative” oversimplifies the reality. While it’s true that the Nazis co-opted Christian language to legitimize their racial ideology, they did not understand themselves as Christians. The regime created the so-called “German Christian” movement as an antisemitic, Aryanized distortion of Christianity that sought to purge its Jewishness, not as an act of faith, but an exercise in control.

In practice, many Nazi leaders embraced a kind of neo-pagan or occult nationalism, blending Germanic folk religion, racial mythology, and conspiracy theory into a quasi-religious worldview. It wasn’t a continuation of Christian theology, but a replacement with blood-and-soil mysticism.

The Nazis were neither secular liberal atheists, nor were they Christians. They were neo-pagans who were creating their own religion.

[Szdfan]

But…and here’s where there’s more ambiguity. When Hitler was elected in 1933, 95% of the German population identified themselves as either Protestant or Catholic. In that sense, Germany was a “Christian nation.”

There is debate among historians about whether the Nazis were engaged in a planned “Kirchenkampf” against the churches and whether Hitler intended a deliberate long-term eradication of the churches.