OPINION:
Neighborly Faith’s recent study titled “Christian Nationalism: A New Approach” supplements data from previous studies of Christian Nationalism such as the one completed by PRRI. Neighborly Faith’s study suggests that Christian Nationalism is less widespread than other reports, making Christian Nationalism somewhat less of a threat in the public sphere and more of a threat to the Church.
Subscribe to have The Washington Times’ Higher Ground delivered to your inbox every Sunday.
For instance, a disproportionate percentage of Christian Nationalism adherents (71%) and sympathizers (60%) describe themselves as born-again Christians or Evangelicals according to Neighborly Faith’s report. A similar trend was evident in PRRI’s Christian Nationalism research, with 64% of White evangelical protestants classified as Christian Nationalism adherents or sympathizers. These classifications are based on responses to a given set of statements (five for the PRRI study and 13 for the Neighborly Faith study).
When these statements are assessed theologically, the challenge for the Church becomes more evident: The threat of Christian Nationalism is against the body of Christ and requires clarification in biblical teaching.
Due to the volume of statements included in Neighborly Faith’s report, only the three questions with which those classified as Christian Nationalism adherents “strongly agreed” will be addressed.
Statement 1: Faith can make people better citizens.
SEE ALSO: Study: Christian nationalists may not be the demons that some claim
Being “better citizens” can be somewhat arbitrary.
Christians, for instance, respect governing authorities as divinely appointed individuals and entities who are to enact justice. While we are to be subject to these authorities “for the Lord’s sake” (1 Peter 2:13) and to avoid resisting “what God has appointed” (Romans 13:2), we also refuse to obey men rather than God (Acts 5:29).
Our Christian convictions shape us into Christ’s disciples, not the state’s disciples. Our citizenship is in heaven (Philippians 3:20). If being “better citizens” involves conforming to our nation’s expectations rather than to Christ, Christians will only be good citizens to a point. Assuming our faith will ally us with any nation forever is to forget that we are to be salt and light (Matthew 5:13-16). It is to forget that we are ultimately at odds with the world (John 15:18-19) even when we are only seeking “to live a godly life in Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 3:12).
Statement 2: Public schools should allow teachers/coaches to lead or encourage students in Christian prayer.
It is unreasonable to think that teachers and coaches are capable of maintaining a neutral position even when they are not part of any religious group. As I’ve argued elsewhere, the First Amendment’s establishment clause is appropriate but narrow in that it does not account for ideological perspectives that share characteristics with religions but are not classified as religions. As such, non-religious notions about the sacred and profane are presented making American civil religion and other ideologies more accessible in some contexts than religious perspectives.
Allowing teachers to lead and encourage students to pray seems problematic, particularly if allowing Christian prayer would also mean allowing non-Christian prayer and other practices. Teachers are currently allowed to express their personal faith in public school settings as was upheld in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. As Christian teachers exercise their personal faith, they bear witness to the students they teach. It seems to me that Christian teachers should also be able to encourage Christian students; however, it seems unwise to have teachers and coaches lead Christian (or other sorts of prayer) in a mixed group of Christians or non-Christians.
Statement 3: The success of the United States is a critical part of God’s plan.
God’s use of nations is complex. There are instances in which the success of a given nation is critical to God’s plan.
For instance, Babylon’s success led to Israel’s exile, which was a consequence of Israel’s unfaithfulness. Was Babylon’s success a critical part of God’s plan? It would seem so. The king of Babylon is called God’s servant (Jeremiah 25:9). Still, Babylon’s success was temporary, and the nation’s actions would not go unpunished (Jeremiah 25:12-14). One could make similar observations about Persia, which would eventually displace Babylon and release the Jews so they could rebuild the temple (2 Chronicles 36:23; Ezra 1:1-4).
Nations play a role in what God is doing. If that is all statement three implied, it would seem reasonable to agree. However, it seems likely that, given the context of the survey, this statement implicitly posits a special relationship between God and the United States. To put it differently, it suggests that America has some sort of enduring relationship with God that warrants God’s continued blessing.
As I’ve noted elsewhere, the United States is unique and has been blessed by God, but it is still just another nation. As such, suggesting that its perpetual success is a critical part of God’s plan does not fit any biblical pattern of God’s interaction with the nations. Instead, we find that God’s people are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of his [God’s] own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.”
While much more could (and should) be said regarding these statements, it seems clear that agreeing with these statements without some qualification is theologically problematic. The disproportionate percentage of Christians classified as Christian Nationalism adherents or sympathizers in the Neighborly Faith and PRRI studies suggests that the Church has a theological problem. That problem surely involves a misunderstanding of biblical teaching regarding the state’s relatively limited, though not unimportant, role.
Perhaps more importantly, it involves a misunderstanding of the Church of which all Christians are a part. The Church is separate from the state not because of the law of the land but because the Church, unlike the state, is bound to Christ. That bond calls the Church to an alternative lifestyle that involves the proclamation of the gospel in word and deed.
Ultimately, Christian Nationalism, as described in the Neighborly Faith and PRRI studies, elevates the state at the expense of the Church. As such, Christians need to be less concerned about Christian Nationalism’s threat to our public life and more concerned with the problems Christian Nationalism raises for the body of Christ.
–
James Spencer earned his Ph.D. in Theological Studies from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He believes discipleship will open up opportunities beyond anything God’s people could accomplish through their own wit and wisdom. As such, his writing aims at helping believers look with eyes that see and listen with ears that hear as they consider, question, and revise the social, cultural, and political assumptions hindering Christians from conforming more closely to the image of Christ. James has published multiple works, including “Christian Resistance: Learning to Defy the World and Follow Christ,” “Useful to God: Eight Lessons from the Life of D. L. Moody,” “Thinking Christian: Essays on Testimony,” “Accountability, and the Christian Mind,’ and “Trajectories: A Gospel-Centered Introduction to Old Testament Theology.” In addition to serving as the president of the D. L. Moody Center, James is the host of “Useful to God” a weekly radio broadcast and podcast, a member of the faculty at Right On Mission, and an adjunct instructor with the Wheaton College Graduate School.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.