The current cultural fixation on the term “Christian nationalism” will not lead to necessary discussions about what role religion should play in public life for one simple reason: there is no common consensus about what constitutes Christian or political consistency with what ” nationalism”. is defined.
A recent Associated Press story claimed that scholars characterize Christian nationalism as “a fusion of American and Christian values, symbols, and identity” and a belief that God “destined America, like biblical Israel, for a special role in history.” hat” and that the land “shall receive divine blessing or judgment dependent upon his obedience.”
These features sound ideologically neutral, but most journalists and political liberals frame Christian nationalism as a white, conservative, patriarchal, theonomic enterprise. They have created a religious avatar embodied, to quote a prominent religious and social historian, in the distorted theology of Jesus and John Wayne.
The same critics do not recognize a version of liberal Christian nationalism marked by the appropriation of religion in the service of Jesus and Elton John.
Their definitions of Christian nationalism do not include Cory Booker quoting the biblical text “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.” Political Rally before telling the crowd that they must put their faith into action to “bring this nation back to life.” It also wouldn’t involve Maxine Waters telling a church in Los Angeles that she had one divine order to oppose President Trump or the long history of the Catholic Democrats, by Nancy Pelosi President Bidenwho cite their faith as a driving force in their approach to public policy.
Defining “nationalism” is an equally difficult task, given that the term carries negative connotations when used by liberal academics, journalists, and elected officials to describe the conservative belief that American domestic and foreign policy protects the citizens and should put the interests of this country above those of any other nation.
Democrats see nationalist immigration policies as xenophobic fears of a “tanning” population and nationalist energy policies as rejection of international efforts to combat climate change, while conservatives see both as exercises of American sovereignty over who enters the country and what powers it has.
The inability to define basic concepts related to Christian faith or national character is not surprising. Conservatives and liberals who identify as Christian often approach their respective interpretations of the Bible and the Constitution in the same way.
The Christian Right believes that the words of both documents should be interpreted according to their original meaning, based on the authors’ intended message. They readily recognize the difference between a Bible composed of books written by multiple authors over centuries – all inspired by an infallible, eternal, omniscient God – and a Constitution created by mortal, fallible men who wanted to create a national government.
They would readily concede that although the Bible and the Constitution are very different documents, their interpretation should follow the same basic principle: the designer is also the definer.
This means that the Author of creation writes the rules about what is right and wrong and serves as the sole authority to judge human behavior. The definitions of male and female, the inherent value of human life, the definition of marriage, and the blessing of children are all drawn from the scriptures.
It also means that the Founders determined the form and function of our federal system of government, civil liberties, and a built-in process for updating our Constitution to reflect changes in how the nation understands the limits of state power and the protection of individual liberties.
The Christian left takes a very different approach, seeing both the Bible and the Constitution as “living documents” that should evolve—both in meaning and application—with the changing times. For theological liberals, the designer is acknowledged, but individuals and those people who have the most influence in a given context define every aspect of creation and determine its purpose.
To the extent that politicians on the left invoke Scripture in discussions of public policy, they treat these passages as allegorical stories, an ancient hybrid of Aesop’s fables and Mesopotamian mythology.
They take a clear and consistent biblical teaching on the composition and purpose of marriage, dust “love is love” dust on the text, and out comes a whole new definition of the institution defined in Genesis 2:24.
You apply the same formula in other areas. Scripture speaks of the intricate structure and inherent value of human life in Psalm 139, but “pro-choice” pastors such as Senator Raphael Warnock argue that a child’s life depends on its mother’s financial position and whether she can want.
On a number of issues, the left is using the words of Scripture to change that definitions clearly communicated in the Bible. They reject Scripture as the ultimate source of authority over Christian doctrine, even when it comes to clear, unambiguous doctrine.
We clearly understand the rights of designers in other contexts.
My iPhone is the physical manifestation of Steve Jobs’ ideas about how people can use technology. Everything about it, from its physical form to its features, was designed with intention. Like any designer, Jobs had a specific purpose in mind for every intricate detail. I demote his handwork if I use it as a coaster, paperweight, frisbee, or any other feature that “works” for me but refuses his purpose for his Creation.
The designer is the definer.
I believe that a nation that acknowledges God in its policies, principles and pulpits will be better off than one that does not. I believe that politicians who act with wisdom while recognizing the limits of their power and knowledge govern more effectively than those who think you are omniscient and omnipotent.
I believe that a nation that embraces the natural, moral and social order will always achieve better results than one marked by chaos and disorder.
One of the greatest threats to order is the practice of twisting language to obscure changes in cultural norms that would otherwise be resisted if described in plain language.
The worldview that treats gender differences—both in form and function—as arbitrary and insignificant, race, particularly the fusion of color and sinful nature marked by “whiteness,” as ingrained in human nature has no chance of ending the to understand the complex relationship between spiritual belief and public life.
People who cannot define the word “woman” should not be responsible for defining the characteristics of a God-honoring nation.
The two most important issues underlying any debate about the application of morality to civil government and culture are the standards we use to judge good and evil and the agency that decides those standards. How we both resolve will determine the future of our nation.
https://www.theblaze.com/fearless/oped/squires-christian-nationalism Squires: “Jesus and Elton John” Christian nationalism rejects the belief that our designer is our definer