A 'confusion of categories'

Dear Editor,

Last year, I wrote an article, for en's website, titled Should we ban public displays of non-Christian faiths? (see article here). I am grateful for the recent effort at engagement from Michael Reade in his article In defence of Christian nationalism (see article here).

I am a Baptist, and wrote from convictions that I believe are Scriptural, and are consistent with the early English Baptist articulation of Biblical faith and practice. Reade is, I believe, a Presbyterian. His article is consistent with his convictions, as I understand them.

We need more, not less, convictional clarity and consistency in commenting on core theological distinctives.

Ignoring the differences in pursuit of a lowest-common denominator evangelicalism has left too many matters unaddressed and unresolved, to our peril. So again, I welcome the discussion.

There was a time when such disagreements were more dangerous, especially for someone of my convictions. Samuel Richardson, one of the pastors behind the First London Baptist Confession of Faith, reportedly commented to the effect that there would be little difference between papal and Presbyterian rule. The same sentiment was more famously expressed by the poet, John Milton in his 1646 poem, On the New Forcers of Conscience under the Long Parliament: “New Presbytyr is but Old Priest writ large." Thankfully, not least due to the perseverance, peace-ableness, and political action of Baptists, greater liberty of conscience (and freedom of press!) is now enjoyed - allowing for these discussions.

There are many areas that deserve unpacking in Reade’s article, and the written form has limitations - perhaps someone could organise a round table discussion of these things! But there are two matters not unique to Reade, that I would like to address to move the conversation forward: first, a neglect of definitions, and second, a confusion of categories.

A neglect of definitions

It would be good if those who would defend Christian nationalism took greater care in defining their terms. Even proponents seem to struggle with this, but we cannot afford to be individualistic relativists here: words have meaning.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica defines “nationalism” as an “ideology based on the premise that the individual’s loyalty and devotion to the nation-state surpass other individual or group interests". This cannot be baptised without killing it, since Christ alone is worthy of our all-surpassing loyalty and devotion.

Christ has made His called-out people into a “holy nation” (1 Peter 2v9). Unless “Christian nationalism” is a weird way of saying “prioritisation of the church and its Christ-centred worship and witness” (spoiler: it is not), then there can be no movement on this.

Those of us who reject Christian nationalism are rejecting any project that reduces our new humanity in the gospel of Jesus Christ and obedience to His commands to an adjectival qualifier for a fallen human ideology built around the kingdoms of the world.

Words not only have meaning, they also have history. Both contribute to a definition of Christian nationalism. I think it is helpful to take original proponents and contemporary voices at face value in understanding how to define the movement.

The earliest reference I have seen to the term, “Christian nationalism” itself, is from the Afrikaner Broederbond (founded 1918) and Boer militants in the Ossewabrandwag.

Later, South African Prime Minister and President BJ Vorster declared in 1942: "We stand for Christian Nationalism which is an ally of National Socialism. You can call this anti-democratic principle 'dictatorship' if you wish. In Italy, it is called 'Fascism'; in Germany, 'National Socialism' and in South Africa, 'Christian Nationalism.'"

Perhaps we might peruse Faith and Heritage: A Christian Nationalist Anthology. Or not. It is produced by Antelope Hill Publishing, an openly Nazi printing press with translations and reproductions of Third Reich material. This is not simply guilt by association. This is refusing to walk with the wicked or sit with scoffers.

The most widely circulated contemporary work on Christian nationalism is Stephen Wolfe’s The Case for Christian Nationalism. Its author (whose heart is demonstrated by his social media content) states that “all that is essential to generic nationalism is true of Christian nationalism”, and maintains the ethnocentric blood and soil vision of Volksgeist (positively citing Johann Herder, the 18th century German nationalist philosopher whose ideas were carried forward by the Nazi Party over a century after his death).

We surely ought to have no desire to be downstream from or in any way associated with such poison. But we cannot just ignore it, or provide an alternative definition and outworking as though words have no meaning or consequence. In each example, “Christian” is swallowed up by “nationalism” and not the other way around. Could a better conversation be had if at a minimum the banner of “Christian nationalism” was rejected instead of defended? I think so.

Instead of being carried along by the winds of a faddish movement with vile fruit that is increasingly evident, we could have a more anchored discussion about the responsibility of Christians to society, and the role of government under God.

We will still have disagreement - this is not simply a matter of talking past each other - but hopefully without needless distraction.

A confusion of categories

For many critics of the Baptist vision I have previously articulated, there is a confusion of categories. Our rejection of Christian nationalism (on exegetical, confessional, and definitional bases) and attached belief in universal liberty of conscience and generous religious liberty is interpreted as somehow requiring withdrawal from political engagement guided by Scriptural principles.

What I have argued should not be interpreted as, to quote Reade, “forcing today’s church into passionless political passivity, but also anathematising the vast majority of Christians throughout history who faithfully pursued Christian influence at a national level.” Rather, liberty of conscience and freedom of religion helps me to do so!

We already have laws, shaped by natural law and reflective of the second table of the Ten Commandments and their wider application, which should be enforced equitably regardless of religion for the public good. That is the government’s role, such that the apostle Paul could apply it even to the emperor Nero (Romans 13) and the Christian responsibility to pay tax despite doubtless feeling they were in a hostile environment.

But we dare not put any government in a place over human conscience, which despite Reade’s denials, is what is happening when a government decides which religions get to express their religion and which do not.

For my part at least, an insistence on the distinction and properly understood separation of church and state does not entail, as I believe is feared, the separation of Christian and state. I do not think we should tell ourselves we are “politically impotent” as Christians in society, and even if we are, even if we think commendable and righteous goals are unattainable, we should pursue them anyway as the right thing.

So the early English Baptists I cited in my earlier article engaged with the political processes of their time - not least in their pursuit of religious liberty! The influential Particular Baptist pastor William Kiffen was an MP with the ear even of kings to whom he was politically opposed. There is much that can be learned from Christians throughout the ages with regard to transformative social action for the glory of God in the good of our neighbours. If we believe in the Imago Dei of our neighbours from womb to tomb, this will and must call us out of passivity.

We should be under no illusion that good laws properly enforced entail a regenerate nation bowing the knee to Christ as King. Indeed, the same could be said of a self-identifying Christian nation, that stifles idolatrous practices, and actively endorses and perhaps enforces participation in Christian worship.

Let’s not muddy the waters any more than they already have been by telling ourselves that our nation is Christian or that its people can be properly called such apart from a gracious work of the Holy Spirit through the preaching of the Scriptures awakening the spiritually dead to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.

Let’s not be tempted by Satan’s wilderness whispers to take shortcuts toward giving the kingdoms to Christ.

We dare not confuse divinely-given roles of authority or distort the mission of God in Christ and His appointed means for kingdom advance in the church. This will only perpetuate the present situation in which we find ourselves across the UK and Europe: an under-evangelised, Scripturally-illiterate, and yet self-righteous society that still blasphemously tells itself at various times that it is “Christian”, but does not know Christ as Saviour or follow Him as King.

Yours sincerely,
Ryan Burton King
By email