I was asked to review and critique a sermon by Dr Voddie Baucham about Christian Nationalism.1 A few words before I engage in that exercise, I am not trying to belittle Dr. Baucham in any way nor disparage his legacy, I am simply critiquing one message. Further there are things in this message I appreciated and even though I am not going to dwell on those things I want to mention that . His ministry of praying for those in positions of authority is good and I think more churches should do just that.
The first thing Dr. Baucham says is that “Christian Nationalism” has no standardized definition, and he makes this claim based on his idea that it is simply a pejorative term used to denigrate opponents. These statements are common rhetorical tactics in some circles of Christian Nationalism but they are simply untrue. The standard definition of Christian Nationalism is, “An ideology that seeks to create or maintain a legal fusion of Christian religion with a nation’s character. Advocates of Christian nationalism consider their view of Christianity to be an integral part of their country’s identity and want the government to promote—or even enforce—the religion’s position within it.” It is correct to say that there are variations within how the term can be applied and that specifics are not agreed upon but that is a different claim than Dr. Baucham’s and his lack of nuance on the subject seems to indicate either an ignorance of the topic or a desire to hide behind the ambiguity.2
While like other words in our common lexicon (like fascist, communist, etc.) it can be used as simply a pejorative to decry one’s opponents, Dr. Baucham’s assessment shows ignorance of the term and it’s use from the outset. Further, his initial critique begins in contrasting it with the social justice movement. Two things are important to note here, first even if the movement he references in 2020-2021 was not aligned in every way with Christianity he is absolutely incorrect when he defends the claim, “social justice is unbiblical” (03:10). Social justice is Biblical. The prophets told Israel they went to exile because they did not practice social justice (e.g. Ezekiel 34). Now, if his argument was that the movement in America in 2020-2021 was not completely aligned with Biblical ideas of justice, fine, but that is not what he said nor did he correct himself. Further, he equates the rise in use of the term with opposition to a group who were standing up to social justice, while conveniently leaving out any mention of the events at the US Capitol on January 6th, 2021 which were the real impetus for the rise in the use of the term.
At 10:59 he brings up the objection that you cannot identify America as a nation. This is an accurate objection if you are using the definitions behind the idea in the Bible. The idea of nations in the Old and New Testament is an ethnic cultural idea, not a geo-political one. Dr. Baucham is making a classic mistake that Christian Nationalists routinely fall into he takes an English translation of a term “nation” and gives it the meaning that he most naturally thinks of, without recognizing the term behind that translation does not use the same definition. This comes back three minutes later when he asks about calling his nation to worship God. Here again he is using the wrong definition of an English term that does not match its Hebrew and Greek counterparts. Also, in this question he uses a classic motte and bailey fallacy. He asks about evangelizing his fellow citizens but that is not in the definition of Christian Nationalism. Christian Nationalism is not about evangelism or calling out sin in the government and so this shot at the critiques of the movement does not apply to the criticism they make. Further, his appeal to Psalm 2 takes the poem out of context and does not give adequate concern to either the setting of the Psalm or the “now and not yet” understanding of Jesus’ reign that is foundational to Christian beliefs. Psalm 2 is not saying that every ruler must bow the knee to God in the way Christian nationalism understands the idea. It is a poem saying that God (and so God’s chosen ruler- for Christians Jesus) reigns. This does not mean that all nations must acknowledge that fact or is a literal way be subservient to that fact. This is a poem extolling the greatness of the king not a treatise on government the way Baucham is using it. Here is the reality if he wants to define a nation as simply a group of people who share ethnic, cultural, or linguistic history then don’t bring up government. If you are talking about government then leave out the dictionary definition and Biblical definitions. And while Baucham routine criticizes his opponents for muddying the waters, this is exactly the issue he is creating. When you listen to opponents of Christian Nationalism, the claim is exactly that proponents are trying to muddy the waters by uniting the ethnic, cultural, linguistic ideas with government. In other words Christian Nationalists are saying you need to share certain cultural, and ethnic markers to have a say in the government.
He continues this fallacy with the question he asks at 12:20 “do we believe that the nations are the Lord’s heritage?”. The question “lord’s heritage with Christian dominance and these are not fully interchangeable concepts. again, simply because Christ reigns does not mean that Christians have any claim to power in this world. In fact, the only times the New Testament talks about Christians having power is in the coming world not this one meaning this appeal is negated by the New Testament.3
Another fallacy he uses throughout is exemplified at 13:58, it is a generalization fallacy, he never identifies his critics or his dialogue partners by name nor does he address specific ideas or claims. He simply is opposing the “woke mob”. Here we have the real crux of the issue, his political opponents are using the term “Christian Nationalist” and his argument is that because they are using the term it must then simply be term of derision. He supports this idea by transition to the topic of “White Christian Nationalism”. Here again his inability to distinguish definitions and his desire to make this about the “woke mob” shows. He does not recognize that when he uses the dictionary definition of a nation which includes “shared ethnicity or culture” that includes race, at least to some degree. He has it entirely backward when he accuses the “woke mob” of forcing the 1828 ethnic definition of nation on others. Instead the Critics of Christian Nationalism are pointing out that the movement is trying to conflate that definition with a more modern definition of people held together by the bonds of government. Christian nationalists are the ones saying that you must share our cultural identity to have a share in the government, the overwhelming majority are referring to Anglo-Protestantism. Some like Stephen Wolfe (whose book published by Doug Wilson is considered by many to be the the premiere defense of the idea) makes this explicit. It is because the people who are pushing the movement are pushing for specifically an “Anglo-Protestant” understanding of Christianity, that it gets termed “white”. The culture that the nationalism gives preference to in its beliefs is a ‘white” culture. Just like “Black Israelite Nationalism” gives preference to a “black” culture. Dr. Baucham’s dismissal of this as “Marxist” shows a lack of engagement with the topic and a desire to appeal to fear tactics. His bias shows up again when he brings up Zambia. Notice that he does not notice the clear contrast between Zambia’s preamble and the United States (something all Christian Nationalists seem to fail to notice). He does not note that there is an explicit difference between the intersectionality of Zambia’s statement of Christianity and the U.S’s lack of this language. Further, his statement that Zambia being an African nation and expressing Christianity in its governmental documents means the American version is not “white” is misleading. Yes Zambia has this commitment, it would be called “African Christian Nationalism” because it’s express commitment is to an African version of Christianity, not tied to “Anglo_Protestantism” like American proponents. Baucham completely misses this necessary distinction. Baucham continues this blatant misunderstanding when he discusses England’s historic commitment to Christianity. He misses that the United States (as he says like Zambia) was a British colony. Britain has expressly Christian language in their government and when the United States formed the founders explicitly rejected all of this language. States that were originally founded as British colonies and because of that had explicitly Christian language in their Constitutions maintained that language (because Britain required it) until the United States was founded and then gradually changed their Constitutions to abandon the language.4 And yes the idea that “America is a Christian Nation” is largely made up, it was made up in the 1810’s-1820’s as justification for policies related to “Manifest Destiny” the idea that God had ordained the United States to be a continent wide power. This idea provided a religious justification for wars of conquest and genocide that were perpetuated against natives. Were the vast majority of Americans Christians from the earliest colonies on, yes. But that is not the same as saying that America was founded as a Christian nation (see the citations Bacuham provides for Zambia and Britain). The mythology of America as a Christian Nation began later and has served as a way to provide unity to a disparate people. The downsides of this mythology has been that it has allowed Americans to justify brutal behavior as serving God’s purposes (like slavery or wars against natives). It has also provided people with an unrealistic portrait of the past. Baucham repeats this mythology perfectly by appealing to the Mayflower Compact a document that had no bearing on the formation of the United States. (Ironically, he does this after talking about being ignorant of America’s founding). The founding of the United States as a political entity does not include the founding of the British Colonies. Baucham is doing what he claimed his opponents do, blending the old dictionary definition of a cultural ethnic background with the modern definition of a geo-political state. It is absurd to claim the critics of Christian Nationalism are trying to blend these definitions then ten minutes later do precisely that. To me this rambling mess of a lecture hits its tone right there.
Yes, Christianity ha been an important part of United States history, but that is different from saying “America is a Christian nation”. In the dictionary definition Baucham brings up, the United States has never been nor sought to be a “nation” and our political constitution has never included Christianity, so in no real sense is “America a Christian nation”. Yes Baucham is right that the “west” has significant freedom and it precisely because Christians have never sought a Nationalism. His comparison to the Middle East is not “Christian Nationalism” vs “Islamic Nationalism” it demonstrates Christians rejecting nationalism while Islamic countries embraced it. His comments at the 35:00 mark express what many Christian Nationalists say they want,l expressly because they are yoking Christianity to Nationalism. He criticizes these Islamic countries without recognizing that is the same end as Christian Nationalism. He simply does not care because it is his people in power. But if he wants to commit to the kind of freedom he says he wants then he has to reject the Nationalism that wants to bring the 19th century definition of nation into the modern world and makes it the litmus test for our current government. Baucham says “Christianity does not force men to worship.” This is exactly why Christian Nationalism does not work. Christian Nationalism seeks to make Christianity a necessary part of the ethnic unity that is necessary for the government, that is forcing people to accept Christianity or be authorized from any power, exactly like the Muslim nations Baucham criticized. Frankly Baucham’s criticism Islamic Nationalism and the way he describes Christianity in this small section sounds exactly like how Christian critics of Christian Nationalism speak, but he has a priori rejected them as “woke”.
I honestly, think that much of Baucham’s problem is that he preemptively rejects the critiques of Christian Nationalism because he rejects some critics as “woke” instead of weighing the issues. This is exemplified in that the only resource he brings up is Kristin Kobes du Mez’s thoroughly researched Jesus and John Wayne. He does not engage with Dr. du Mez’s book but simply dismisses it in his “woke mob” attack. The issue is that Dr du Mez is a well respected expert in her field and the book is an example of solid research and is widely accepted in scholarly circles.5 Baucham’s entire presentation sounded confused and relied heavily on logical fallacies and blatant factual errors.
- You can find the video here ↩︎
- For a far better engagement of the topic from roughly the same position see Kevin DeYoung’s recent article. Though DeYoung is not without his own issues like defending Doug Wilson who is an unapologetic “paleo-Confederate” and has defended Confederate slavery. But at least DeYoung interacts with the material and shows he has engaged with those who advocate for the idea. https://clearlyreformed.org/6-questions-for-christian-nationalists/ ↩︎
- For a discussion of a Biblical approach to such issues see Jesus Is Lord, Caesar Is Not edited by Scot McKnight and Joseph B. Modica. Also note the publication date 2012, this book was written ten years prior to Baucham’s first encounter with Christian Nationalism and is already addressing the ideas. ↩︎
- Historians like John Fea and Mark Noll have done a good job explaining this. ↩︎
- This does not mean that the book is beyond criticism, some have provided critiques of her work but to simply dismiss the book as “woke” shows a intellectual failure to truly engage with positions one finds a priori distasteful. ↩︎
Squinting in the Light 