The danger of Christian nationalism

Yesterday, I listened to a friend and colleague preach about the pitfalls of compromising the gospel of Jesus Christ. He focused particularly on the dangers of embracing uncritically the tenets of progressive Christianity, making several excellent observations and points with which I wholeheartedly agree. Yet, while he also warned of similar hazards present in nationalistic Christianity, I was sorry that time did not permit him to conduct an equally thorough examination of those issues. You see, I am an unapologetic supporter of biblical values across the board. If you can support a position with solid hermeneutics, I will champion even the most unpopular cause, but this commitment presents me with a real conundrum. As my friend pointed out yesterday, I cannot embrace many of the values of progressive Christianity. Yet, I find the tenets of the evangelical right, which has unfortunately become virtually synonymous with nationalistic Christianity, to be too selective. I cannot champion the unborn while overlooking the grave injustices suffered by my friends of color and immigrants. I cannot trumpet fiscal conservativism while my neighbors, not for a lack of trying, are unable to afford basic essentials. I cannot equate following Christ, who called himself “the Truth” (John 14:6), with supporting a party that advocates “alternative facts” and assertions that “no reasonable person” would believe.

As a result, I find myself in the awkward position of agreeing with my evangelical right friends that our nation is in a moral death spiral but unable to subscribe to their strategy for rectifying the situation. In particular, the two legs of their strategy with which I must take exception can be summarized as (1) conflating the gospel message with a whitewashed rendition of American values and (2) an unswerving allegiance to the Republican Party as the only hope for staying the country’s slide into moral oblivion.

Of course, as soon as I say that, some on the evangelical right will leap to a number of conclusions, so let me be clear. I am not advocating an exodus of Christians from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party. Neither am I a proponent of rejecting all American values and/or embracing Marxism. In fact, I would decry the uncritical embrace of any political strategy to rectify our nation’s primarily spiritual problem.

Coincidentally, during my personal devotions this morning, I found myself reading 1 Samuel 12. At the beginning of the chapter, the prophet Samuel just finished anointing and installing Saul as the first king of Israel because the nation was convinced that having a king, as their neighbors did, would solve all of their problems. Samuel warned them that a king would not solve their existing problems and would actually cause new ones. Then, in verses 13-15, he said this:

13 Now here is the king you’ve chosen, the one you requested. Look, this is the king the Lord has placed over you. 14 If you fear the Lord, worship and obey him, and if you don’t rebel against the Lord’s command, then both you and the king who reigns over you will follow the Lord your God. 15 However, if you disobey the Lord and rebel against his command, the Lord’s hand will be against you as it was against your ancestors.

1 Samuel 12:13-15 (CSB)

Put another way, Samuel presented the new king, Saul, to the nation and reminded them that their primary allegiance must never be to this man, but to the Lord their God. He was not as concerned that they waved their flags and supported Saul as he was that they worshipped and obeyed the Lord. If they would only do that, then they would be guaranteed that “the king who reigns over you will follow the Lord your God” (vs 14). That is, if the people were godly, then the king would be godly. Indeed, Samuel’s statement implies that, if the king was not godly, the godly people would hold him accountable and remove him from office.

Unfortunately, the strategy of Christian nationalists is the exact reverse of this. In essence, they suggest that, if the king is godly, then the people will be godly, and the primary litmus test of the king’s godliness is whether he will support their stance on their favorite issue. As long as that is in place, then many of my brothers and sisters on the evangelical right suppose that this candidate must be God’s anointed to the exclusion of all other indicators.

Over the last several election cycles, the results of this backward strategy have become blatantly clear. At best, the strategy has been wholly ineffective as our culture has continued its slide into the moral abyss. At worst, it at least shares partial responsibility for the undeniable vitriolic polarization of our society.

But if this strategy is backward and ineffective, what shall we do instead? Fortunately, by 1 Samuel 12, Samuel was an old man and had plenty of experience with the ebb and flow of Israel’s faithfulness. He had grown up under Eli, who looked the other way while his sons abused and extorted the Israelites and the nation wandered in a spiritual wilderness. He had seen the ark of the covenant captured by the Philistines and remain twenty years in Kiriath-jearim because the Israelites failed to handle it with due reverence. Certainly, this represented a low tide in Israel’s faithfulness. Conversely, he was there when the whole house of Israel, longing for the Lord, gathered at Mizpah and stood in prayer as the Philistines drew near, an unmistakable high tide. Now, as the faith of God’s people teetered once again, Samuel knew exactly what needed to be done.

Whether or not they heeded his exhortation to fear, worship, and obey the Lord, Samuel vowed in vs 23 to do two things. First, he would “not sin against the Lord by ceasing to pray for you.” That is, regardless of their level of commitment, he would pray ardently for the Israelites. If they continued on their trajectory away from the Lord, he would pray that God would do whatever was necessary to bring them to repentance, and if they turned and resolved to follow the Lord wholeheartedly, he would pray that they would do so with an ever-increasing fervor.

Second, he would teach them “the good and right way.” That is, he would tell them about the character and command of God, beckoning them to align themselves with him, and he would model in his own life what that looked like.

Would this strategy prevent Israel from sliding into apostasy? It would be put to the test soon enough. In 1 Samuel 13, Saul did not wait for Samuel to offer the burnt offering, and God rejected him as king. Rather than insist that Saul was God’s anointed, Samuel rebuked the king and announced that God had chosen a new ruler for his people, “a man after his own heart” (1 Samuel 13:15). In 1 Samuel 16, Samuel anointed young David as the next king of Israel, and while it would take years for him to ascend to the throne, David’s reign would be the high water mark of Israel’s faithfulness.

In short, because Samuel placed fidelity to the Lord above fidelity to the king, prayed for his people, and continued to teach and model the good and right way, Israel did return to the Lord and thrived.

When I was younger, my brothers, friends, and I would often ride our bicycles to a nearby state park to hike, fish, and camp in the woods. One of my favorite places in the park was a high ridge that ran between two streams that eventually intersected and flowed out of the park as one. The views along this spine were breathtaking, but the dangers, if you strayed too far left or right, were very real as sheer cliffs dropped from the ridge to the creeks below.

To be certain, there are dangers on both sides of us today. If we blindly follow earthly ideologies or political parties, whether left or right, it will lead invariably to our demise. We must reject both the ungodly tenets of progressive Christianity and the backward strategy of Christian nationalism. Indeed, the only viable strategy to bring renewal to our culture must include ardently praying for our neighbors and nation and faithfully teaching and modeling the good and right way in our own lives.