This is the third bulletin note on Christian nationalism.
Like many terms, Christian nationalism lacks a universally accepted definition. This is problematic because the label means different things to different people. If we can’t agree on a definition, how can I say I support or do not support the idea? For example, if you say I support the idea of Christian nationalism, do you mean I support America being influenced by Christian values? Or do you mean the litmus test for serving in government leadership is a clear testimony of conversion to Christ? I’m asking because I am being pressed to take a position.
Doug Wilson, a leading proponent of Christian nationalism, says secularism is broken. I agree. We agree. What divides us is how a nation-state can become more Christian. Al Mohler insists that we do so through regeneration, with people becoming followers of Christ. Others suggest we need to change the laws. What do you think? Christian legislators passing laws that promote Christian values. Is that the way to go? Do you want homosexuals in prison? I don’t. Do you want drunkenness criminalized? Do you see the difficulty in applying those laws?
This is what I know from Israel’s history: giving them the best and perfect laws did not work. In some sense, that is the point of the OT. Men and women need new hearts. Internal change cannot be manipulated, manufactured, or mass-produced. God created and ordained three entities for society’s good: family, government, and the church. Of those three, only one is limited to those with a new heart, namely, the body of Christ—the church. King Agrippa needs to be converted. Paul desires to see him saved. But Paul does not suggest that he be removed from office because he refused to convert. Paul addresses sisters in Christ who are married to unsaved men, yet he does not tell them to divorce their unsaved spouses.
The church, the people in the assembly, not those sitting in the pews, are members of the body of Christ. This is an important distinction that church members often lose sight of. Your precious infant is not part of the church, yet she is cared for in the nursery. Your 5-year-old may or may not be saved yet; he is taught in Sunday school. The church is the only place where entry is limited to those born again. When someone says, “I grew up in church,” they may mean the physical building or a church community. But you don’t grow up in the church. The unconverted are not in the church. Remember how I am defining the church.
The church is the ekklesia of the redeemed. It is the Christian entity on the planet. Christ is its head, chief shepherd, Lord, and Savior. Those whom he has purchased with his own blood are the members of His body. We admit into the membership only those whose profession of faith is in Christ and whose testimony is: they have been born from above.
Some suggest we are to disciple the nations, drawing on Matthew 28:19. Drawing an application from Matthew 28:19 is an attempt to legitimize, in the NT, the pursuit of Christian nationalism. But we don’t baptize nations. Nations are not born again, and they cannot receive a new heart. Do you see how we are back to preaching the gospel and seeing individuals converted?
I can’t find anything in the New Testament that implies or teaches that the apostles understood their mission was to change Rome from a pagan governing entity to a Christian entity. Can you?
