We’ve been hearing more about “Christian Nationalism” recently. I read a lot of articles about how intersections of faith, politics, and culture happen in our nation and it’s obvious to me that some of these connections are healthy and helpful while others are decidedly unhealthy and unhelpful.
We are fortunate in this nation that the Framers of our Constitution spoke quite clearly about this issue in the First Amendment. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .”
Thank goodness, religious freedom for us citizens is protected. We may practice any religion however we choose or we may choose to be non-religious. We may speak our mind in public and express our beliefs freely. We may attempt to persuade others to agree with us. Personal religious freedom is pretty much sacrosanct in our laws and in society.
But while we people are guaranteed these expansive rights, the other side of the First Amendment coin explicitly limits the power of government. The federal government and all state governments (since the Fourteenth Amendment) are prohibited from forcing upon us citizens any particular religion with its dogmas and practices.
However, some disagree with the way our society is organized because some people in the United States always have thought Christianity should be privileged. In recent years, because of the changing demographics in this country, the influence of Christianity has declined and now some are terrified by this shift. This panic has produced a new wave of “Christian Nationalism” (Note how I use scare quotes. My preferred way to speak of this danger is to call it christianist nationalism since I believe this is not at all a version of authentic Christianity.)
“Christian Nationalism” is a perversion of both wholesome Christianity and healthy patriotism. It’s an unholy union of a particular way of doing religion with a specific belief about what kind of nation America should be. In this way of thinking, governmental power would force citizens to live within a narrowly defined framework of religion, ethics, and morality. Only adherents of this specified religious nationalism would be counted as properly “religious” and appropriately “patriotic.”
I saw this mindset demonstrated recently by a member of my community in a column in our local newspaper. In light of our Constitution, his recommendations are breathtaking.
“Here is a sample for public schools (K-12 and Paris Junior College): first, start daily with the Lord’s Prayer, second is the Pledge of Allegiance to the USA, Texas and Christian flags. Post on the main entrance wall The 10 Commandments, Cross of Christ and the 49 Commands of Christ that identify 49 character qualities of Him for us to identify with. Have boys taught by men, girls taught by women . . .”
This agenda may be appropriate for a private Christian school and the writer is within his First Amendment rights to advocate in the public square for what he believes. By the same token, I am guaranteed my right to protest his proposal and advocate strongly against it.
Responsible citizens must consider what is healthy or unhealthy about how we organize our societies. We religious Americans must ponder the various helpful and unhelpful ways personal faith should intersect public policies.
And those of us who wear the name of Christ must be very careful (and prayerful) about what kind of witness we offer to the world. We must love our neighbors enough to give them the same freedoms we desire for ourselves.
I’ve always wondered about the label “nationalism” for the political movement to legislate a specific dogma where moral views vary. There’s nothing obviously emphasizing the common good of people of all religious views in the US (my definition of national common ground, rather than state or party or individual authority). Plus, the nature of the Christian brand of American efforts toward expanding religious authority and privilege has changed in the last 50 years of my life toward less and less emphasis on respect for national institutions, just on more political power, and on authoritarianism based on religious dogma. So “nationalism” strikes me as just the wrong label. Maybe “supremacy” is a better word?
When these ‘Christians’ go on about the Ten Commandments, I’m always eager to ask ‘are you Jewish? Why do you keep pushing the Jewish commandments?’ As a Christian, they clearly forgot what Jesus said about the two great commandments (if you don’t believe me, read Matthew chapter 22, verses 35 to 40). But I guess for these people, a list of ‘thou shalts’ – ordering people to do certain things, or not do other things, rather than love people, is more to their liking.
Jesus was asked to pick out two commandments from the 10 as a test, not to override the 10 Commandments. The 10 Commandments are still in effect, or did you forget ‘thou shalt not murder’? and ‘thou shalt not bear false witness’ and ‘thou shalt not steal’? His response was to distill the 10 Commandments into two things: one, to reverence God, and the other, to treat your neighbor as you would want them to treat you (the Golden Rule).
“On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets”. If you love you neighbor as yourself, then you won’t murder them.
You are wrong. When Christ came, He brought a new covenant, or law (Heb. 10:20). This is the law under which we live today, the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2). Christ preached about this while He was on earth. “But,” cry some, “aren’t we supposed to keep the Old Law today? Doesn’t God want us to do this?” No, He does not! The Old Law was done away in Christ. The apostle Paul made this abundantly clear in II Corinthians 3:6-17. Read this passage carefully and notice the terms “done away” (v. 7, 11, 14), “abolished” (v. 13), and “taken away” (v. 16). These terms refer to the Old Law or Law of Moses. It would help a lot if you actually had some knowledge of the bible, which you obviously don’t.
A very important article that I hope Evangelical and other Christians that have forgotten about the biblical Pharisees.
May I use the last sentence with appropriate reference to the author?
(This is my first comment)
Of course Susie. Thanks for reading.