I recently wrote a response to a video of Voddie Baucham addressing the idea of Christian Nationalism (here). The same individual who asked me to review the video responded to that post and while I usually do not engage in such back and forth in this format I thought I would make an exception and respond directly to the comment here. the Original comment is in italics.
What makes the definition you use the standard definition? Where does that come from? I don’t necessarily disagree with it, but there are multiple definitions. In the accompanying lecture by Tom Ascol, he cites about a half dozen different definitions that have been published in books and papers on the subject. He settles on one that is agreed to by both opponents and proponents of the ideology. Voddie doesn’t spend as much time on the definition because the previous lecture was almost exclusively about it.
First, I like how Ascol starts by distinguishing between “what it is” and “how it’s used”. This is true and I focus on “what it is”. This is important because my interlocutor’s main argument is that “how it is used is inconsistent with the definition or it cannot be defined therefore any criticism is wrong” (see below). This is false. When we talk about what it is the definition I provided is a baseline for speaking about it, if the definition does not talk about your beliefs I am not discussing your beliefs.
Now as for the “definitions” Asscol provides, beginning at the 5:30 mark of his lecture he discusses them. Here are the issues, first he conflates definitions with commentary, or “what it is” with “how it is used” to use his words. When he brings up du Mez, Scott, and Horton they all have basically the same definition (though with different wording based on context) and all agree with the definition I cited. The rest is commentary. Yet Ascol pretends like quotes like Claiborne’s are definitions when they are just commentary. His inability to distinguish between the “what it is” and “how it is used” is alarming since that is the literal thrust of his speech. Frankly, this was just poorly done, he should have recognized the difference between definition and commentary and recognized all the definitions he cited were basically the same.
Also he identifies himself and his position when he contrasts Michael Horton with the three before him as “mostly trustworthy” this is a rhetorical trick to undermine the other authors without engaging their points. This kind of rhetoric is dishonest since we should judge a person’s trustworthiness on the claims, not a priori as he is doing. Further, his entire system of judging people as dependable seems to be whether or not they hold a Reformed Theology. Individuals like Horton and Stephen Wolfe he praises while others outside his tradition he disregards. Again this kind of preemptive bias is wrong and he offers nothing else of evidence for his judgments. The fact he does not offer any other criteria for his judgments of individuals is more telling of his prejudice than any of their shortcomings. Especially when we consider du Mez whose book (which he cites) is widely regarded in her field as thorough and well researched and argued. To simply write her work off as “untrustworthy” without engaging any point she makes is dishonest.
I need to also address the fact that Ascol’s point about these definitions comes straight from Stephen Wolfe who’s book A Case for Christian Nationalism is considered by many proponents the best defense of the idea. Critics of the book have rightly pointed out that Wolfe’s thought fits into the standard definition I have supplied. Additionally his work makes no effort to interact with scripture in any meaningful way. Instead, Wolfe’s entire argument is based on 17th & 18th century Reformed thinkers, some of them quite niche. Further Wolfe’s own rhetoric is often racist (i.e.“White evangelicals are the lone bulwark against moral insanity in America.” & saying interracial marriage is sinful) on top of his desire to overthrow the constitution and install a “Christian prince”. Wolfe has also been know to cite 1930’s German nationalists and keep close connections with other more overtly racist individuals. Wolfe’s presentation of Christian Nationalism is expressly ethno-national, this is not my criticism of him Wolfe has stated this. He is explicitly arguing America should be ruled by a Christian prince in the English Reformed tradition. Ascol himself plays this same game in toeing the line when it comes to racism. Recently, he would not condemn racism within Christian Nationalism because as he said he was not sure which definition of racism was accurate.For all of Asocl’s comments about being neutral (like Dr. Baucham) he makes it abundantly clear he is going to side with Christian Nationalists because they are on the political right and out of hand condemn critics because they are criticizing the political right (regardless of their political position).
But back to Wolfe’s claim that there are an abundance of definitions, he does not cite them, Ascol does not cite them, Baucham does not cite them. The truth seems to be there are not an abundance of definitions however there is some nuance in how the definition is applied (like with everything). The artificial conflation of the “what it is” and “how it is used” by Ascol, Wolfe, etc. simply is a distraction trying to amplify the criticism that it is simply a pejorative term. It is not, there is a clear definition. However, I notice that each person making this claim then does use a different term as simply a pejorative against their perceived political opponents. Watching Ascol and Baucham’s presentations I do believe to some degree they do not care much about Christian Nationalism one way or another. However, I do also think they are defending Christian Nationalism while dismissing the critiques without truly hearing the critiques. The reason seems to be that Ascol and Baucham are conservatives in the Reformed tradition and so are most proponents of Christian Nationalism. They are defending their own without actually engaging the material.
Regardless of how it is designed [defined?[, the way it is most commonly used is in the pejorative sense. You mention a similar situation with words such as racist or socialist, etc. These words are often used in conversation as a way to label an opponent as a bad person without having much to do with the actual meaning or definition of a word. In this case, if a person has different political beliefs and they are a Christian, they can be labeled as a Christian Nationalist in an attempt to discredit their opinion. Perhaps you don’t use the term in that way, but it is the most common way it is used in public discourse.
This entire paragraph is disingenuous and I only left it in because I did not want anyone to accuse me of editing the original even if omitting this would strengthen the case of the whole. But simply because individuals use the term as an attack does not mean they are using the term correctly. And simply because people use the term incorrectly does not negate a case against the idea. meaning simply because someone in the news media might call an individual a Christian Nationalist as a pejorative without properly applying the idea does not mean criticism of true Christian Nationalism is wrong (which is the argument of this paragraph). What makes this comment worse is that the individual follows it up with an appeal that criticism of Christian Nationalism is “cultural Marism” effectively doing what they just called out as wrong. It is very difficult for me to take this argument seriously when the next part of the argument does what they are criticizing.
Your commentary does not discuss one of the main topic of Voddie’s lecture, the connection to cultural Marxism. Unlike traditional Marxism which seeks to divide people by economic class, the cultural Marxist divides people by race, religion, gender, sexuality, age, immigration status, and host of other demographic factors. In our previous discussions, you mentioned that Christian Nationalism is all about power. Doesn’t that fall into the cultural Marxism paradigm? It is about making the victim class versus the oppressor class. It used to be the oppressor was the straight, white, cisgender, able-bodied, native born, male Christian. But, a lot of progressives found themselves in all those categories and were not willing to say they were gay just to get into the victim class. So the category of Christian Nationalists was created to make them the oppressor so the liberal progressive white male Christian could be part of the victim class.
As I said in my preceding response I could simply appeal to the previous argument to show why this is a flawed point. And yes in my preceding post I was dismissive of this claim because I found it absurd. Let me break this claim down more thoroughly.
First, a quick history of the term “Cultural Marxism”. it was invented in the 1990’s with direct ties to the Nazi idea of “Cultural Bolshevism” and “Jewish Cultural Bolshevism”. Now I sincerely doubt my interlocutor or Dr. Baucham are aware of the history of the term but see it as a way to identify a left leaning strategy to replace Christian culture with secular culture. I am also fairly sure that neither of them intend the racist ideas that under-gird the origins of this idea, so I am not going to push this point any further except to note that this is by nature a far-right propaganda term. But I need to deal with the term as intended, so I will move to that.
Neither Baucham nor my interlocutor provide any evidence to back up this claim. They do not demonstrate how anyone who opposes Christian Nationalism is pushing for any kind of “cultural Marxism” nor what it would look like for opposition to Christian Nationalism be cultural Marxism. This is simply an assertion made, and so (as I did in my previous post) can be dismissed. An Assertion without evidence cannot be taken seriously. Or as my Granddad would tell me when I was little, “No one can argue with you when you say, ‘it is to me.'” And when all opposition is simply lumped into a category for bad people it becomes very difficult to argue that point, but let me try.
Numerous Christians have argued against Christian Nationalism on theological grounds. Individuals, like N.T. Wright, Michael Bird, Scot McKnight, Daniel Hawk, John Byron, Allan Bevere are Biblical scholars who I have heard argue against Christian Nationalism on Biblical/theological grounds.1 And honestly that’s an extremely short list from the top of my head. If I sat down and thought about it I could come up with numerous others. Not only are these individuals arguing from a Biblical/theological perspective they are on the conservative end of the theological spectrum. No one can accuse any of them of falling into a broadly defined “Cultural Marxist” ideology. Further, when we expand the issue to include other disciplines Christians in fields like history and the social sciences argue against Christian Nationalism from their disciplines, not a cultural Maxist perspective. This argument is simply wrong. It is an attempt to discredit all objection as originating in one motivation without scrutinizing the arguments. it is lazy and a bad practice.
Finally, you never discuss what makes Christian Nationalism wrong. Why should we not seek to maintain Christianity as the dominant culture in our country? Why should other religions not be excluded? The reason it is wrong for Islamic nations to exclude Christians is not because it is wrong to exclude people. It is wrong because Christianity is true and Islam is not. Yes, there will be people that claim to be believers when they are not, and there will be people with heretical beliefs. This is very evident in US churches such as the UMC today. That does not mean we shouldn’t try to cultivate Christianity in our country. There is no such thing as neutrality towards Christianity. Either the government will support it or oppose it. I would prefer that it supports it.
These I find to be legitimate (if somewhat misguided) questions. To the first point you never discuss what makes Christian Nationalism wrong. I did point to a couple of areas where Christian Nationalism is wrong when I said Dr. Baucham’s criticisms describe Christian Nationalism. But since I was apparently less clear in that than I thought let me provide a greater answer to this.
As Dr Baucham said the United States has never defined ourselves as a nation by the older (he uses 1828 Webster) definition– a body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular area or territory. He is correct about this, the United States has always defined ourselves as– a body of people united by shared geography and political government. Christian Nationalism seeks to force the first definition onto the United States in addition to the second, and as Baucham says, that is wrong. To seek to impose a culture on people by fiat is wrong at least for Christians. This leads into the first real question of the paragraph Why should we not seek to maintain Christianity as the dominant culture in our country?
This question represents a motte and bailey fallacy. No one is arguing against “seek to maintain Christianity as the dominant culture in our country”. The argument is about how this is done and why. Christian Nationalism uses coercion to align people with the ideals of those in power. This is wrong, at least for Christians. Paul speaks against such coercion in numerous places. Even when Paul wants Philemon to free his slave he does not resort to a coercive use of power but lays out a choice for Philemon and says to do what he thinks is best. When Christians have disagreements like over what constitutes idolatry or what days are sacred, Paul says to those whose strength leads them to more freedom, do not coerce your fellow Christians. Christians, by nature are not coercive in this sense, but walk with others to help them grow. In other words a truly Christian government would be tolerant of a wide range of social beliefs as Christians work out their own salvation. Because Christian Nationalism wants to mandate Christianity it can never be consistent with the true ideals of Christianity. Dr Baucham makes this point when he contrasts Christianity and its freedom with Islamic Nationalism. He is right to point out that Christians allow freedom to others. Meaning you could never “ban other religions” in a Christian nation since you would recognize the need to allow others their private freedom.
I know the next push-back will be the very tired “so you’re saying that Christians can’t push for any public morality”. No, we can express our opinions and we can work toward what we feel is right but that is different from saying that the we are going to dominate others and force explicitly Christian ideas on all society. This is a serious problem I have consistently encountered in this conversation. So few Christians who push for Christian Nationalism (or at least who are tolerant of the idea) have ever thought through this point. They have never stopped to think through what our brothers and sisters face in Islamic Nationalism and how that hardens them against Islam. Such a strict push will only cause people to hate Christianity. I am writing this on the anniversary of the repeal of Prohibition. Prohibition was arguably the high-water mark of these ideas in practice in America and it was a complete disaster. Christians sought to make a better society by coercing government to hold to their standards and ultimately it backfired and many people ended hating the Church. Did the Amendment do some good? Yes. Did the good outweigh the harm to the church? No.
Now Yes, Christians can and should work in government. Frankly, I wish more genuine Christians were in government and fewer individuals “who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, walk out the door, and deny Him by their lifestyle.” –Brennan Manning. But it is important that we remember how we are supposed to act as Christians– as servants. This means the more power we have the less we force our ideas on others and the more we listen to them. A true Christian in government will be the best representative of the people they represent. So to go back to the first question, yes we all want Christianity to grow and thrive but those of us who oppose Christian Nationalism understand there are no shortcuts. We understand that Christianity grows and thrives through witnessing and discipleship, not government action.
But the trouble is individuals who promote Christian Nationalism do not care about this, as my interlocutor demonstrates. They want to claim power for their own subset of Christianity to have power. Note they call out the UMC as heretical (presumably over the recent UMC decision to allow same-sex clergy). However nothing in the UMC doctrines has been condemned by any Church council as heretical. However, this individual supports Dr. Baucham and other individuals claim the “functional subordination” of Jesus a position that has been declared a heresy by multiple Ecumenical councils. This is the true difficulty of talking with individuals like this. They make the cultural sins of the day more important than others. This individual wants to exclude United Methodists from power in a Christian Nation because they are on the wrong side of the political aisle while siding with people whose views have been condemned. This is a great demonstration of the problem, Dr Baucham et al are simply using this idea as a political divide. They are trying to wield power for their political ideals while dressing it up under the name Christian, while not truly attending to historic Christianity. This is why Christian Nationalism is wrong, it is a coercive use of political power to promote political ideas disguised as Christian culture. This is using Christianity as a smokescreen, it is keeping the form while denying the power.
- Take a minute to appreciate the irony that Baucham and others criticize these individuals as “Cultural Marxists” when they build their opposition to Christian Nationalism from scripture into solid theology attempting to align themselves with what Jesus said and did. Meanwhile the Christian Nationalist cited above as the defender of the movement avoids scripture and argues he did not need to encounter scripture to make his case. As with all of this he fits into the criticism of Baucham more than the critics. ↩︎
Squinting in the Light 
Leave a comment