Yes, this is another article on Christian Nationalism, a subject that has ignited considerable debate within the Church. Much of the discussion generates more heat than light, leading to unnecessary division and antagonism. In many cases, those aligned with Christian Nationalism are quickly dismissed, labeled as heretics or false teachers, with their beliefs cast outside the bounds of orthodoxy. Unfortunately, Christian Nationalists are often tempted to return the favor, treating those who disagree as opponents of the faith.
However, I believe this conversation can be conducted in a way that honors Christ. We must approach the issue as an "in-house" debate—a discussion between brothers in Christ. The unfortunate reality is that much of the criticism is framed to cause division, and responses to these critiques only escalate the fracture. My goal in this article is not to give a full-throated defense of every aspect of Christian Nationalism. Rather, I want to examine the criticisms it faces and demonstrate that these disagreements, while real, should not lead to division within the Church.
Defining Christian Nationalism
Before addressing the criticisms, it is essential to define Christian Nationalism. Admittedly, this is not an easy task since different advocates may emphasize varying points.
Stephen Wolfe offers a helpful broad definition: Christian Nationalism is "a totality of national action consisting of civil laws and social customs conducted by a Christian nation as a Christian nation in order to procure for itself both earthly and heavenly good in Christ."
Similarly, Andrew Torba describes it as "a movement of Christians who want to see the moral teachings of Jesus Christ reflected in the laws and culture of our nation, aiming to build a Christian society for the glory of God and the good of our people."
While there may be minor differences in emphasis between these definitions, they align on key points: civil government and social customs should operate in accordance with Christian principles, both for the glory of God and the well-being of the people. This means that civil authorities would acknowledge Christ as King, uphold God’s moral law, and encourage the Christian faith. Governments should pass laws that reflect biblical morality, protect the Church, and promote public righteousness.
Two Broad Categories of Criticism
Criticism of Christian Nationalism generally falls into two broad categories: (1) doctrinal disagreements and (2) peripheral issues such as terminology, movements, and personalities. Let's begin with the doctrinal concerns.
Doctrinal Criticisms
The doctrinal criticisms of Christian Nationalism often center on the role of civil government. Specifically, opponents challenge the idea that the government should declare Christianity the state religion and rule in a way that favors Christianity. This could include enforcing laws that protect the Church, prohibit public blasphemy or idolatry, uphold biblical sexual ethics, and honor the Sabbath. Broadly speaking, the debate concerns whether civil government should operate in alignment with God’s law.
Critics often dismiss this view by labeling it as dangerous, anti-democratic, or even heretical. Unfortunately, many of these criticisms are lacking in substance and rely on emotional appeals rather than scriptural or theological engagement. While some more thoughtful critiques exist, they too often paint Christian Nationalism as a departure from orthodox Christianity.
But this view is not novel, nor is it heretical. The idea that civil government should honor God’s law has been held by Christians—particularly Reformed Christians—for centuries. Theologians like John Calvin, John Knox, and others were clear about the role of government in enforcing God’s moral law. Calvin, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, writes extensively on civil government, stating that its responsibility extends beyond merely maintaining public order. Magistrates are to suppress idolatry, protect true religion, and promote the public worship of God. Calvin writes:
"Nor is the magistrate’s office merely to see that men breathe, eat, drink, and are kept warm in public peace, but also that idolatry, sacrileges against God’s name, blasphemies against his truth, and other offenses to religion may not be openly set forth and disseminated among the people."
John Knox, the father of Presbyterianism, took an even stronger stance, arguing that rulers betray their office if they fail to defend the Church and uphold God’s truth. Many other Reformers, from Matthew Henry to William Symington, echoed these sentiments. Even the Westminster Confession of Faith originally affirmed the magistrate's role in maintaining public piety.
It is important to clarify: we do not argue that every tradition of the past is correct. All doctrine must be weighed by Scripture. But it cannot be said that Christian Nationalism's views on civil government are outside the bounds of orthodoxy, unless we are willing to cast out men like Calvin, Knox, and the framers of the Westminster Confession.
Some have argued that these views were simply products of their time. But this is akin to dismissing Paul’s instructions on gender roles by claiming they were merely cultural. Paul’s teachings were grounded in nature and divine order, not societal trends. Likewise, Calvin's arguments were grounded in Scripture, not cultural norms. Critics must be willing to engage biblically and theologically if they want to refute this historical position.
Ethnicity and Nationhood
Another doctrinal criticism often leveled at Christian Nationalism is the charge of racism, particularly regarding the concept of nationhood. Critics argue that Christian Nationalists are promoting an exclusionary or ethnocentric vision of the nation. However, the biblical concept of nationhood has been consistent throughout Church history. Nations are defined by a shared heritage, culture, and language—not merely by adherence to an abstract set of ideals.
The modern notion of a "propositional nation," where people are united around an idea rather than a shared cultural/ethnicl identity, is a recent innovation. That doesn’t mean necessarily that it is wrong,(I believe it to be unhelpful) but it is novel. Some Christian Nationalists, in line with the biblical understanding of nations (e.g., Deuteronomy 32:8, Acts 17:26), affirm that nations are composed of peoples with common bonds. This does not imply racial supremacy or hatred towards others, but an acknowledgment that God has made people distinct and placed them in their respective nations according to His will.
Again, this position is not heretical. It aligns with the historic teaching of the Church, and to dismiss it outright is to ignore centuries of Christian thought on the matter. To claim that those who hold to a biblical view of nationhood are engaging in racism is a slanderous oversimplification. Darrell Down has compiled a huge resource of quotes and passages from church history and beyond on the topic of natural affection that show how ubiquitous the views are throughout the church.
Now that we’ve addressed the primary doctrinal criticisms of Christian Nationalism, let’s move to what I call the "peripheral" issues. These deal not with the substance of Christian Nationalism itself but with matters that can still cause controversy. There are three key subcategories here.
The Name "Christian Nationalism"
One of the most common criticisms is simply over the use of the term "Christian Nationalism." For various reasons, people find the name problematic. As Joash Daws points out in American Reformer, while the concept of a Christian nation goes back centuries, the label "Christian Nationalism" is relatively new. It first appeared in print in the late 1800s and saw gradual usage throughout the 20th century. However, it was not until the January 6th Capitol protests that the term exploded into the national consciousness.
Initially, "Christian Nationalism" was used as an insult. The media applied it broadly to anyone who believed that the civil government should enact moral laws or give Christianity a place of prominence in society. Whether someone merely advocated for pro-life laws or for more explicit religious establishment, they were lumped into the "Christian Nationalist" category. This is nothing new. The word "Christian" itself was originally used as a term of derision, and "Protestant" was an insult as well. Yet, believers took these labels, owned them, and infused them with meaning beyond the insult. Stephen Wolfe, in writing his book on Christian Nationalism, essentially did the same thing—he embraced the term and taught principles that aligned with the convictions of historic Christians.
Some may dislike the name, but that doesn’t matter. Call it whatever you want—the principles behind it are what truly count. To divide over the name "Christian Nationalism" is, frankly, foolish. If some believers prefer to use the label while others do not, that’s fine. The substance of the beliefs is far more important than the label itself, and there is no need for division among brothers based on which name they choose to adopt.
There are also objections to the word "Nationalism" in the name, with some critics arguing that nationalism means elevating one’s nation above all other allegiances. However, Christian Nationalists do not claim that ethnic or national identities should trump our loyalty to Christ or other God-ordained responsibilities. Loyalty to one’s nation is part of the broader Christian duty, but it does not supersede our other callings in life.
Another critique is that by using the word "Christian" in the name, Christian Nationalists are coopting the term Christian to say that they are exclusively the ones with the claim to it. While I believe other Christians should embrace the core beliefs of Christian Nationalism, this is not an attempt to monopolize the term "Christian." Rather, the word "Christian" is being used descriptively, much like we use the term "Christian school." It clarifies what type of nationalism is being promoted—one that seeks to order society according to Christ’s teachings.
Just as not every "Christian school" perfectly meets Christian standards, some who adopt the label of Christian Nationalist may fall short. But this doesn’t mean they are claiming to be the only Christians or that anyone who disagrees with them isn’t a believer. Arguing over the name or label is ultimately unproductive. If you believe in Christ as Savior, we are brothers in the faith, regardless of whether you choose to use the term "Christian Nationalist" or not.
Of course, labels can be helpful. We use terms like "Reformed," "Presbyterian," and "Amillennialist" to distinguish what we believe about particular doctrines. But these labels are always secondary to the name "Christian" or "follower of Christ." So, while terminology is important in distinguishing certain beliefs, it should never become a point of unnecessary division within the body of Christ.
The Movement
The second category of criticism surrounding Christian Nationalism focuses on the movement itself and the enthusiasm it generates. Some argue that it is a passing trend or that it places an undue emphasis on secondary matters—elevating issues of civil government to a priority that eclipses more foundational Christian responsibilities. This can lead to men becoming overly fixated on political solutions while neglecting their duties within the home and the local church. Worse yet, it can stir up bitterness or even tempt men to contemplate revolutionary actions when they should be engaged in sanctification and the building up of their families and congregations.
Of all the criticisms leveled against Christian Nationalism, this one holds significant weight. It is certainly possible to overemphasize political concerns at the expense of the Gospel. After all, it is not the civil government that saves sinners; it is the Gospel of Jesus Christ that is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16). However, we cannot deny that Christ’s reign over the nations is a critical part of the Gospel message. The same power that raised Jesus from the dead and seated Him as King over all nations is at work in His people. His kingship has implications for every sphere of life, including civil government.
That said, the temptation to elevate even good things above Christ is always present. We must heed these warnings, ensuring that we do not let political zeal overshadow the Gospel. When churches neglect key areas of theology—such as the role of civil government—it creates a vacuum. As believers begin reclaiming historic Reformed doctrines, they may overcorrect, giving disproportionate attention to these neglected teachings. This is not unlike what happened during the rise of the Young, Restless, and Reformed movement, where an overemphasis on Calvinism sometimes took precedence over the broader Christian faith. The truths themselves were not the problem; it was the imbalance.
Christian Nationalists should take this criticism seriously and guard against allowing secondary issues to take center stage. But this critique should be given in the spirit of brotherly correction, not divisiveness. When criticisms are delivered harshly or dismissively, they can drive people to dig in their heels rather than help them grow. Older, more seasoned men in the faith should come alongside younger men who are passionate about these issues, guiding them in wisdom, not undermining them. As the Reformers understood, growth in holiness and doctrinal maturity must encompass all of life, not just political or civil matters. These matters though are not insignificant. They were all included in the reformed confessions for a reason.
If there is a concern that Christian Nationalism is overly focused on civil government, the solution is not to dismiss the issue but to model a balanced Christian life where Christ’s lordship is evident in every area. We should not downplay the importance of Christ’s reign over the nations but show by example that our highest priority is the proclamation of the Gospel and personal holiness.
It would also be helpful for critics to be more specific in addressing particular temptations and sins within the movement rather than dismissing it wholesale. A thoughtful, targeted critique would encourage growth rather than division.
The Problem of Personalities
A third area of criticism deals with the personalities involved in the Christian Nationalist movement. As with any movement, individuals with immature or extreme views can latch onto it, sometimes using it as a means to gain influence or power. Unfortunately, some may even harbor racial pride or hatred under the guise of Christian Nationalism. These concerns are valid and should not be dismissed.
Christian Nationalists must be vigilant in ensuring that their movement is not hijacked by such individuals. While reclaiming old Reformed ideas like ordo amoris (the right ordering of loves) and other historic truths is valuable, Christian Nationalists should heed this critique and live in a way that reflects Christian love, humility, and patience. If we call ourselves Christians, we must live as Christians, especially in how we treat our brothers and sisters in Christ. Much of the division in these debates could be mitigated if all sides exercised more love and patience toward one another. Every criticism is not an attack, and every disagreement should not be met with hostility.
Those within the Christian Nationalist movement should also do a better job of policing their own ranks, recognizing and rejecting those who would exploit it for unbiblical purposes. Part of Christian Nationalism’s vision is that civil magistrates and societal norms can regulate and discipline a nation’s moral character. In the same way, unjust ideologies like Nazism or unjust racial hatred should be confronted and normed out of the movement entirely. There should be no room for such views in any Christian context.
Conclusion
At the end of the day, I identify as a Christian Nationalist because I affirm the doctrines regarding civil government that align with the views of John Calvin, the Westminster Confession of Faith, and other Reformed traditions. I also embrace a biblical understanding of nationhood. However, I share concerns about ensuring that the movement does not become fixated on racial pride or vainglory. I accept some of the criticisms made against the movement and aim to grow through them, striving to be a force for good within Christian Nationalism.
I believe firmly in what the Bible teaches about civil government and what the Church has historically believed. Yet, I am not willing to divide over disagreements with brothers who do not adopt the label "Christian Nationalist" or who express concern about the movement’s focus. As Christians, we must learn from our critics and grow in wisdom and holiness.
On the other hand, I would urge those who oppose Christian Nationalism not to be too quick in casting out their brothers as heretics or engaging in the kind of judgment that fosters division. The heat in these debates can be turned into light if brothers are willing to have meaningful, honest conversations. When we speak to each other face-to-face or over the phone, much of the tension tends to dissipate.
Finally, I would encourage my fellow Christian Nationalists not to fall for the easy bait of triggering others or indulging in low-hanging fruit for the sake of controversy. Instead, let us take these criticisms to heart and ensure that our focus is not solely on the civil realm, but on Christ’s lordship over all of life. Let’s also make sure we are not guilty of the very faults our critics warn us about.
Most importantly, we must avoid dividing from faithful Christian brothers who disagree with us on these issues but still love and follow Christ. In the end, the unity of the Church is far more important than any particular political ideology.
However, I believe this conversation can be conducted in a way that honors Christ. We must approach the issue as an "in-house" debate—a discussion between brothers in Christ. The unfortunate reality is that much of the criticism is framed to cause division, and responses to these critiques only escalate the fracture. My goal in this article is not to give a full-throated defense of every aspect of Christian Nationalism. Rather, I want to examine the criticisms it faces and demonstrate that these disagreements, while real, should not lead to division within the Church.
Defining Christian Nationalism
Before addressing the criticisms, it is essential to define Christian Nationalism. Admittedly, this is not an easy task since different advocates may emphasize varying points.
Stephen Wolfe offers a helpful broad definition: Christian Nationalism is "a totality of national action consisting of civil laws and social customs conducted by a Christian nation as a Christian nation in order to procure for itself both earthly and heavenly good in Christ."
Similarly, Andrew Torba describes it as "a movement of Christians who want to see the moral teachings of Jesus Christ reflected in the laws and culture of our nation, aiming to build a Christian society for the glory of God and the good of our people."
While there may be minor differences in emphasis between these definitions, they align on key points: civil government and social customs should operate in accordance with Christian principles, both for the glory of God and the well-being of the people. This means that civil authorities would acknowledge Christ as King, uphold God’s moral law, and encourage the Christian faith. Governments should pass laws that reflect biblical morality, protect the Church, and promote public righteousness.
Two Broad Categories of Criticism
Criticism of Christian Nationalism generally falls into two broad categories: (1) doctrinal disagreements and (2) peripheral issues such as terminology, movements, and personalities. Let's begin with the doctrinal concerns.
Doctrinal Criticisms
The doctrinal criticisms of Christian Nationalism often center on the role of civil government. Specifically, opponents challenge the idea that the government should declare Christianity the state religion and rule in a way that favors Christianity. This could include enforcing laws that protect the Church, prohibit public blasphemy or idolatry, uphold biblical sexual ethics, and honor the Sabbath. Broadly speaking, the debate concerns whether civil government should operate in alignment with God’s law.
Critics often dismiss this view by labeling it as dangerous, anti-democratic, or even heretical. Unfortunately, many of these criticisms are lacking in substance and rely on emotional appeals rather than scriptural or theological engagement. While some more thoughtful critiques exist, they too often paint Christian Nationalism as a departure from orthodox Christianity.
But this view is not novel, nor is it heretical. The idea that civil government should honor God’s law has been held by Christians—particularly Reformed Christians—for centuries. Theologians like John Calvin, John Knox, and others were clear about the role of government in enforcing God’s moral law. Calvin, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, writes extensively on civil government, stating that its responsibility extends beyond merely maintaining public order. Magistrates are to suppress idolatry, protect true religion, and promote the public worship of God. Calvin writes:
"Nor is the magistrate’s office merely to see that men breathe, eat, drink, and are kept warm in public peace, but also that idolatry, sacrileges against God’s name, blasphemies against his truth, and other offenses to religion may not be openly set forth and disseminated among the people."
John Knox, the father of Presbyterianism, took an even stronger stance, arguing that rulers betray their office if they fail to defend the Church and uphold God’s truth. Many other Reformers, from Matthew Henry to William Symington, echoed these sentiments. Even the Westminster Confession of Faith originally affirmed the magistrate's role in maintaining public piety.
It is important to clarify: we do not argue that every tradition of the past is correct. All doctrine must be weighed by Scripture. But it cannot be said that Christian Nationalism's views on civil government are outside the bounds of orthodoxy, unless we are willing to cast out men like Calvin, Knox, and the framers of the Westminster Confession.
Some have argued that these views were simply products of their time. But this is akin to dismissing Paul’s instructions on gender roles by claiming they were merely cultural. Paul’s teachings were grounded in nature and divine order, not societal trends. Likewise, Calvin's arguments were grounded in Scripture, not cultural norms. Critics must be willing to engage biblically and theologically if they want to refute this historical position.
Ethnicity and Nationhood
Another doctrinal criticism often leveled at Christian Nationalism is the charge of racism, particularly regarding the concept of nationhood. Critics argue that Christian Nationalists are promoting an exclusionary or ethnocentric vision of the nation. However, the biblical concept of nationhood has been consistent throughout Church history. Nations are defined by a shared heritage, culture, and language—not merely by adherence to an abstract set of ideals.
The modern notion of a "propositional nation," where people are united around an idea rather than a shared cultural/ethnicl identity, is a recent innovation. That doesn’t mean necessarily that it is wrong,(I believe it to be unhelpful) but it is novel. Some Christian Nationalists, in line with the biblical understanding of nations (e.g., Deuteronomy 32:8, Acts 17:26), affirm that nations are composed of peoples with common bonds. This does not imply racial supremacy or hatred towards others, but an acknowledgment that God has made people distinct and placed them in their respective nations according to His will.
Again, this position is not heretical. It aligns with the historic teaching of the Church, and to dismiss it outright is to ignore centuries of Christian thought on the matter. To claim that those who hold to a biblical view of nationhood are engaging in racism is a slanderous oversimplification. Darrell Down has compiled a huge resource of quotes and passages from church history and beyond on the topic of natural affection that show how ubiquitous the views are throughout the church.
Now that we’ve addressed the primary doctrinal criticisms of Christian Nationalism, let’s move to what I call the "peripheral" issues. These deal not with the substance of Christian Nationalism itself but with matters that can still cause controversy. There are three key subcategories here.
The Name "Christian Nationalism"
One of the most common criticisms is simply over the use of the term "Christian Nationalism." For various reasons, people find the name problematic. As Joash Daws points out in American Reformer, while the concept of a Christian nation goes back centuries, the label "Christian Nationalism" is relatively new. It first appeared in print in the late 1800s and saw gradual usage throughout the 20th century. However, it was not until the January 6th Capitol protests that the term exploded into the national consciousness.
Initially, "Christian Nationalism" was used as an insult. The media applied it broadly to anyone who believed that the civil government should enact moral laws or give Christianity a place of prominence in society. Whether someone merely advocated for pro-life laws or for more explicit religious establishment, they were lumped into the "Christian Nationalist" category. This is nothing new. The word "Christian" itself was originally used as a term of derision, and "Protestant" was an insult as well. Yet, believers took these labels, owned them, and infused them with meaning beyond the insult. Stephen Wolfe, in writing his book on Christian Nationalism, essentially did the same thing—he embraced the term and taught principles that aligned with the convictions of historic Christians.
Some may dislike the name, but that doesn’t matter. Call it whatever you want—the principles behind it are what truly count. To divide over the name "Christian Nationalism" is, frankly, foolish. If some believers prefer to use the label while others do not, that’s fine. The substance of the beliefs is far more important than the label itself, and there is no need for division among brothers based on which name they choose to adopt.
There are also objections to the word "Nationalism" in the name, with some critics arguing that nationalism means elevating one’s nation above all other allegiances. However, Christian Nationalists do not claim that ethnic or national identities should trump our loyalty to Christ or other God-ordained responsibilities. Loyalty to one’s nation is part of the broader Christian duty, but it does not supersede our other callings in life.
Another critique is that by using the word "Christian" in the name, Christian Nationalists are coopting the term Christian to say that they are exclusively the ones with the claim to it. While I believe other Christians should embrace the core beliefs of Christian Nationalism, this is not an attempt to monopolize the term "Christian." Rather, the word "Christian" is being used descriptively, much like we use the term "Christian school." It clarifies what type of nationalism is being promoted—one that seeks to order society according to Christ’s teachings.
Just as not every "Christian school" perfectly meets Christian standards, some who adopt the label of Christian Nationalist may fall short. But this doesn’t mean they are claiming to be the only Christians or that anyone who disagrees with them isn’t a believer. Arguing over the name or label is ultimately unproductive. If you believe in Christ as Savior, we are brothers in the faith, regardless of whether you choose to use the term "Christian Nationalist" or not.
Of course, labels can be helpful. We use terms like "Reformed," "Presbyterian," and "Amillennialist" to distinguish what we believe about particular doctrines. But these labels are always secondary to the name "Christian" or "follower of Christ." So, while terminology is important in distinguishing certain beliefs, it should never become a point of unnecessary division within the body of Christ.
The Movement
The second category of criticism surrounding Christian Nationalism focuses on the movement itself and the enthusiasm it generates. Some argue that it is a passing trend or that it places an undue emphasis on secondary matters—elevating issues of civil government to a priority that eclipses more foundational Christian responsibilities. This can lead to men becoming overly fixated on political solutions while neglecting their duties within the home and the local church. Worse yet, it can stir up bitterness or even tempt men to contemplate revolutionary actions when they should be engaged in sanctification and the building up of their families and congregations.
Of all the criticisms leveled against Christian Nationalism, this one holds significant weight. It is certainly possible to overemphasize political concerns at the expense of the Gospel. After all, it is not the civil government that saves sinners; it is the Gospel of Jesus Christ that is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16). However, we cannot deny that Christ’s reign over the nations is a critical part of the Gospel message. The same power that raised Jesus from the dead and seated Him as King over all nations is at work in His people. His kingship has implications for every sphere of life, including civil government.
That said, the temptation to elevate even good things above Christ is always present. We must heed these warnings, ensuring that we do not let political zeal overshadow the Gospel. When churches neglect key areas of theology—such as the role of civil government—it creates a vacuum. As believers begin reclaiming historic Reformed doctrines, they may overcorrect, giving disproportionate attention to these neglected teachings. This is not unlike what happened during the rise of the Young, Restless, and Reformed movement, where an overemphasis on Calvinism sometimes took precedence over the broader Christian faith. The truths themselves were not the problem; it was the imbalance.
Christian Nationalists should take this criticism seriously and guard against allowing secondary issues to take center stage. But this critique should be given in the spirit of brotherly correction, not divisiveness. When criticisms are delivered harshly or dismissively, they can drive people to dig in their heels rather than help them grow. Older, more seasoned men in the faith should come alongside younger men who are passionate about these issues, guiding them in wisdom, not undermining them. As the Reformers understood, growth in holiness and doctrinal maturity must encompass all of life, not just political or civil matters. These matters though are not insignificant. They were all included in the reformed confessions for a reason.
If there is a concern that Christian Nationalism is overly focused on civil government, the solution is not to dismiss the issue but to model a balanced Christian life where Christ’s lordship is evident in every area. We should not downplay the importance of Christ’s reign over the nations but show by example that our highest priority is the proclamation of the Gospel and personal holiness.
It would also be helpful for critics to be more specific in addressing particular temptations and sins within the movement rather than dismissing it wholesale. A thoughtful, targeted critique would encourage growth rather than division.
The Problem of Personalities
A third area of criticism deals with the personalities involved in the Christian Nationalist movement. As with any movement, individuals with immature or extreme views can latch onto it, sometimes using it as a means to gain influence or power. Unfortunately, some may even harbor racial pride or hatred under the guise of Christian Nationalism. These concerns are valid and should not be dismissed.
Christian Nationalists must be vigilant in ensuring that their movement is not hijacked by such individuals. While reclaiming old Reformed ideas like ordo amoris (the right ordering of loves) and other historic truths is valuable, Christian Nationalists should heed this critique and live in a way that reflects Christian love, humility, and patience. If we call ourselves Christians, we must live as Christians, especially in how we treat our brothers and sisters in Christ. Much of the division in these debates could be mitigated if all sides exercised more love and patience toward one another. Every criticism is not an attack, and every disagreement should not be met with hostility.
Those within the Christian Nationalist movement should also do a better job of policing their own ranks, recognizing and rejecting those who would exploit it for unbiblical purposes. Part of Christian Nationalism’s vision is that civil magistrates and societal norms can regulate and discipline a nation’s moral character. In the same way, unjust ideologies like Nazism or unjust racial hatred should be confronted and normed out of the movement entirely. There should be no room for such views in any Christian context.
Conclusion
At the end of the day, I identify as a Christian Nationalist because I affirm the doctrines regarding civil government that align with the views of John Calvin, the Westminster Confession of Faith, and other Reformed traditions. I also embrace a biblical understanding of nationhood. However, I share concerns about ensuring that the movement does not become fixated on racial pride or vainglory. I accept some of the criticisms made against the movement and aim to grow through them, striving to be a force for good within Christian Nationalism.
I believe firmly in what the Bible teaches about civil government and what the Church has historically believed. Yet, I am not willing to divide over disagreements with brothers who do not adopt the label "Christian Nationalist" or who express concern about the movement’s focus. As Christians, we must learn from our critics and grow in wisdom and holiness.
On the other hand, I would urge those who oppose Christian Nationalism not to be too quick in casting out their brothers as heretics or engaging in the kind of judgment that fosters division. The heat in these debates can be turned into light if brothers are willing to have meaningful, honest conversations. When we speak to each other face-to-face or over the phone, much of the tension tends to dissipate.
Finally, I would encourage my fellow Christian Nationalists not to fall for the easy bait of triggering others or indulging in low-hanging fruit for the sake of controversy. Instead, let us take these criticisms to heart and ensure that our focus is not solely on the civil realm, but on Christ’s lordship over all of life. Let’s also make sure we are not guilty of the very faults our critics warn us about.
Most importantly, we must avoid dividing from faithful Christian brothers who disagree with us on these issues but still love and follow Christ. In the end, the unity of the Church is far more important than any particular political ideology.
Posted in Main Blog
Posted in Christian Nationalism, Unity of the Church, Civil Government, Civil Leaders
Posted in Christian Nationalism, Unity of the Church, Civil Government, Civil Leaders