CALVARYcfn

Introduction [1]

Christian Nationalism (CN), as described by Stephen Wolfe, threatens to diminish the witness of the evangelical Gospel around the world. Wolfe’s political theory will be used as a window through which to view religious nationalism more broadly. As test cases, CN will be surveyed in the United States, Brazil, Ghana, Germany, Ukraine and Russia, and then compared with Hindu Nationalism in India, Islamic Nationalism in Iran, and Buddhist Nationalism in Bhutan. CN will then be viewed under the principles of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 (BFM) in an effort to formulate a theological solution from a Baptist vantage point.

Defining Christian Nationalism

          In discussing CN, it is imperative to rightly represent the movement; therefore, this paper will stay away from unhelpful generalizations in an effort to provide a reasoned focus upon the issues.[2] Stephen Wolfe’s The Case for Christian Nationalism has been chosen as the flagbearer for this discussion for two important reasons. First, his book provides a systematic presentation of CN which is clear, concise, and coherent. Second, Wolfe provides a mainstream voice within the evangelical tributary of the CN movement.[3]

Stephen Wolfe’s Definition 

Stephen Wolfe embraces the term Christian Nationalism, and his definition is usefully simple: “Christian nationalism is a totality of national action, consisting of civil laws and social customs, conducted by a Christian nation as a Christian nation, in order to procure for itself both earthly and heavenly good in Christ.”[4] He frames this as “nationalism modified by Christianity.”[5] This definition may not appear problematic, but the proverbial devil is in the details.

It is important to understand that Wolfe’s CN is opposed to liberal democracies and the form of governments under which most Westerners reside, who enjoy various semblances of liberty and justice for all.[6] To bear this out, Wolfe explains that CN is a “species of nationalism”[7] whereby the government provides “civil direction in true religion,”[8] which is described within the confines of an established and officially sanctioned “pan-Protestant political community.”[9] While Wolfe does not believe that the church or its leaders should run the government, he affirms that a Christian nation and its magistrates would be obligated to foster a civic and cultural environment conducive to Christian virtue and duty. To be clear, this includes passing and enforcing laws governing church attendance, orthodoxy, public conversation, and even church building aesthetics, such as pulpit placement.[10]

Wolfe protests that modern secularists are like an Orwellian Big Brother watching over people and vying to control their lives. Yet, in a turn of irony, he offers the promise of Big Father in the form of state magistrates, who may investigate and interrogate one who missed church, cursed out loud, discussed contrary political views, or circulated minority religious beliefs. Wolfe claims that “civil authority should leave alone what the other spheres of life can effectively govern themselves,”[11] and yet he calls for a Christian Caeasar,[12] “a national god”[13] touted as “the prince” and “first of his people,”[14] who concerns himself with the church attendance of his citizens and the pulpit aesthetics of his clergy.

No Elephants to See Here: It's Just a Theory 

          One problem that stands like a fidgeting elephant in the corner is how Wolfe refuses to compare his Christian political theory within the framework of history. Since nationalism has led to well-documented atrocities, and since CN has not been immune from the temptations of such, it would be reasonable to defend his position against this troublesome background. But Wolfe dismisses such questions outright, waving off “any supposed connotations of nationalism, whatever those might be,” insisting he does not need to “justify or explain away any historical example of nationalism.”[15]

Wolfe rather takes cover behind his own “conceptual defense” that the “ism of nationalism” is merely “the nation acting as a nation for its good;” therefore he “does not appeal to historical examples” or “waste time repudiating ‘fascist nationalism’.”[16] This reads like open-faced irony since Wolfe’s entire work is replete with historical references to the Reformed thinkers of the 16^th through 18^th centuries and often hearkens back to the colonial period. Clearly his perception of colonial America as an assortment of CN nations colors his view and influences his outlook on the history of both nationalism and CN. Yet even in these discussions, he does not address slavery, religious executions, and the near genocide of Native Americans, atrocities coded in Christian religion, which cast a long dark shadow upon his CN idealism.[17]

          The problem with Wolfe’s historical lacunae is that it dismisses the great concerns one may have with CN as if they should not be concerning at all, but there is a restless elephant here that cannot be ignored. Strangely, Wolfe takes the time to document the “homicidal persecution” of 16^th and 17^th century Roman Catholics without recognizing that this was an alternate form of CN, and that the Reformers also promoted similar means of enforcing the laws of their own CN commonwealths.[18] He admits that the “Reformers generally approved of capital punishment for heresy,” but he quickly qualifies their posture as measured and reserved by comparison.[19] The lesson of the Reformers according to Wolfe, is that while civil action against heresy is justified, it should be carried out with “discernment, care, gentleness, and prudence.”[20] How a CN government carries out the death penalty with care and gentleness is not explained. Wolfe insists his work is theoretical, and this apparently excuses him from treating his topic historically. Yet, he also insists that his work should not be taken as a mere “intellectual exercise…of Christian political theory” but rather as a “vision of the future.”[21] Theoretical or not, Wolfe is promoting a well-rehearsed form of ideological government.

Justifying Violent Revolution

Ideally, the goals of CN are ushered in through national renewal coupled with the civic resolve to implement overtly Christian governance, but violent revolution is also justified in achieving this goal.[22] In fact, Wolfe tips his hat toward a violent revolution in America, which could topple the current government, capture alleged tyrants, and renew the country in the image of a CN state.[23] He leaves the non-theoretical aspects to “strategists, organizers, and foot soldiers,”[24] but calls upon Christians to train their will and cultivate their resolve in order to be prepared for such action.[25]

One may sympathize with the desire for a Christian nation-state, but the rhetoric of toppling a liberal democracy is contrary to the Christian message of love and humility toward neighbor and honor and subjection to government authority. To be fair to Wolfe, he discounts the usually cited biblical passages, arguing that the NT writers would have offered a vastly different approach to government if first century Christians had been in the majority. He holds that Paul’s “silence on revolution cannot be construed as a denial of its permissibility,” as it simply would have been absurd in his day.[26] Considering that Paul admonished Christian slaves to “adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in all things” rather than pilfer their master’s home (Titus 2:9-10), one is rightly doubtful about such claims.

The Issue at Hand: Illustrating the Dangers Not Arguing the Principles 

          Wolfe welcomes anyone to challenge the validity of his arguments,[27] but the purpose of this paper is not to argue against the rationale or even the theology of CN, but to illustrate how it strips the evangelical church of its moral and spiritual witness and makes Christian people unfit to carry out the commission of Christ to proclaim His Gospel. This is charitable to Wolfe, who himself admits that he is not a theologian but a political philosopher and theorist presenting a systematic guide justifying the tenets of CN.[28] Wolfe affirms that a CN society will prosper in earthly and heavenly good, but he does not speak toward the importance of the Christian witness and the Gospel commission. Granted, his intention is to provide an intellectual and theoretical justification for CN that can push the movement forward within the United States.[29] In sum, Wolfe is explicating how a CN government could work in theory and is not attempting to draw theological conclusions regarding Christian witness and the propagation of the Gospel. The following sections will highlight the importance of this omission.

A Survey of Christian Nationalism

          One of the most integral features of CN described by Wolfe is its ethnic particularity, which he argues is a natural inclination of man which is not a result of the Fall, but rather a God ordained element of human flourishing, as “no nation (properly speaking) is composed of two or more ethnicities.”[30] This fundamental aspect of Wolfe’s CN is a key factor in defacing the Christian witness for the Gospel. This homogenization of religion, ethnicity, and culture into a nationalistic mixture includes three potent ingredients of religious nationalism more broadly. First, it cultivates a sense of danger and urgency, as adherents view themselves under attack from exterior forces who wish to diminish the nation by undermining its heritage. Second, this spurs a desire to counter a perceived national decay centered in secularism and fear of the Other. Thirdly, this coalesces into a movement to take one’s country back by defending its religious and national heritage. Distilled in this concoction of religious nationalism is an image of the true patriot; that is, only the religious nationalist is a true and rightful citizen who loves his country.[31]

United States 

          The United States has a long history of overlapping religion and government. Many of the colonies were founded as official bastions of Christian denominations, and to this day religion continues to play a powerful part in American politics.

Colonial America

          Various forms of CN were established in the American colonies, and this became a pronounced feature of colonial life and worldview.[32] In the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the early Puritan settlers established a theonomic government and “managed to preserve a relatively uniform faith and practice in their ‘Bible Commonwealth.’”[33] However, despite their theological commitments, they were yet hostile to nearby Indian tribes and persecuted alleged idolaters and Sabbath breakers, even wielding capital punishment for crimes of blasphemy and witchcraft, accusations often employed against Christian expressions which ran contrary to the majority.[34] During this tenure of theocratic rule, these Puritans executed the Boston Martyrs for Quakerism[35]  and held the Salem Witch Trials, which ultimately led to the execution of nineteen people.[36] As Thomas Kidd well observes, “Freedom of self-determination or individual conscience had little place in the Puritan vision of liberty.”[37]

Constitutional America

The late twentieth century witnessed an increase in CN aggression. Tracing this rise of extremism, John White finds that “Christian Nationalists are unapologetic about their embrace of violence,” even citing Wolfe to bolster his point.[38] He lists several violent groups and deadly incidents to illustrate how CN ideology often leads to violence and vividly highlights its inherent dangers.[39] The events of January 6, 2021, produced surreal images of CN fervor, including rioters brandishing Bibles, holding crosses, and invoking the name of Jesus in chants, prayers, and even worship songs.[40] In White’s assessment, CN ideology “fueled the mob,” warning that future CN terrorism is “inevitable.”[41] While church attendance steadily declines, CN is on the rise[42] and Christian nationalists have a strong voice which reverberates through our political system.[43] This is remarkable in light of Wolfe’s portrayal of CN, which produces a cultural Christianity driven by social norms rather than spiritual formation.[44]

Brazil 

On January 8, 2023, Christian nationalists stormed government buildings in Brazil in a violent demonstration of their support for President Jair Bolsonaro, who had lost his re-election bid but fomented his supporters into a frenzy after months of claiming the results were fraudulent. Some have observed a “transnational evangelical cross-pollination” between the United States and Brazil, as their intense populist movements have been strengthened by evangelical Christians.[45] This “virulent” Brazilian strain of CN mirrors its American counterpart, especially as its promoters “continue to spread the idea of the superiority and dominion of Christianity, directly or indirectly contributing to the increasing religious intolerance and racial prejudice that infest the country.”[46]

During his presidency, Bolsonaro derided immigrants, scorned indigenous people and Afro-Brazilians, and persecuted left-wing evangelicals and other minority groups to empower the “real Brazil.”[47] For instance, at a 2017 campaign rally he shouted, “We must end this nonsense of a secular state! It is a Christian state! We will make Brazil for the majority. Minorities must bow to majorities! Either they adapt or they disappear!”[48]

Ghana 

Over 71% of the population of Ghana professes Christianity, and yet, until recently, the country took pride in its constitutional right to freedom of religion, although many conceded that it was indeed a “nation of Christians.”[49] Over the last decade and a half, however, an influential CN movement has gripped the country with “a fervour that is increasingly shaping its national identity.”[50] While Ghana has historically fostered an environment where indigenous religions, Christianity, and Islam could coexist in relative peace, CN political parties have risen to power in the country contending that Ghana belongs only to Christians.[51] This has led to increasing tensions as Christian nationalists openly condemn minorities and Muslims.[52]

Like their American brethren, Christian nationalists in Ghana are promoting the “fusion of their preferred form of Christianity” with the civic life of their nation, despite the fact that their constitution was designed to ensure religious freedom and resist the establishment of a state religion. While a secular state constitutionally, Christian nationalists in Ghana are thoroughly undermining religious and minority rights.

Germany 

The Alternative For Germany (AFD) recently won historic victories in the country. Although no far-right candidate has won a parliament seat since World War II, this movement has quickly become one of Germany’s most popular and controversial political parties.[53] The AFD has built a platform of nationalism, anti-immigration, and anti-Muslim sentiment, while highlighting conservative family values and Christian culture, becoming the party of choice for many Christians.[54] Even though Christians make up a minority of AFD supporters,[55] they are nonetheless part of the “political earthquake” that is shaking up German politics, despite the fact that Catholic and evangelical churches across the country have condemned the party as “not electable for Christians” due to its ethnic nationalism and “positions that contradict the basic values of Christianity, especially with regard to human dignity and diversity.”[56]

Not surprisingly, strong similarities have been observed between AFD supporters and politicized Christian conservatives in the United States.[57] Moreover, both AFD and CN advocates promote ethnic nationalism, isolationism, hostility towards NATO, embrace authoritarian powers, and diminish Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, all of which threatens the security of trans-Atlantic nations.[58]

Russia and Ukraine: A Conundrum 

          Both Russia and Ukraine share a common bond in the Russian Orthodox Church, which has 12,000 parishes in Ukraine. Lena Harned has documented how President Vladimir Putin speaks of the invasion of Ukraine in religious terms, calling for a re-unification of Orthodox Christians in historically Russian lands, and has further explained how “Russian ethno-ideological religious nationalism” has been used to spur the conflict as one of “competing religious narratives.”[59] In fact, the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, who sides with Putin, has described the ongoing war as a struggle of “metaphysical significance” against the corrupting influence of Western liberalism.[60]

          Ukrainians, however, have not been willing to embrace religious nationalism, generally preferring a secular society.[61] This may stem from their lack of a unified national religious narrative, not to mention several competing Orthodox churches which vie for national supremacy.[62] This divide is strikingly illustrated in public opinion, where “devout Orthodox people in Russia are more likely to support authoritarianism and justify corruption, unlike their Ukrainian counterparts.”[63]

Dr. Radu Gheorghiță of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary has observed that Russia and Ukraine present an ironic conundrum: “This tragic conflict is projected and conducted as a CN war against the evils of Western democracy. Vladimir Putin views himself as the last and sole defender of genuine Christianity against all the atheistic Western democracies. However, Ukraine is a Christian nation similar to Russia and both are Eastern European Orthodox countries, hence the conundrum – which Christian nation against which?”[64]

A Survey of Non-Christian Religious Nationalism

          It is important now to turn the issue upside down and attempt to view Christians in the reversed role of the minority in countries where religious nationalism contributes to harassment and persecution. Perhaps stepping into the shoes of the marginalized will aid in understanding just how preposterously hypocritical and unchristian CN truly is.

India 

In his thorough analysis, Christophe Jaffrelot traces the rise of Hindu nationalism in India during the twentieth century, and how it has gained increased political power over the last twenty years. He further outlines the “political trajectory of India from populism to ethnic democracy and authoritarianism” during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s tenure in office, which has created a harsh political atmosphere for minorities.[65]

Within this environment, minorities such as Christians and Muslims, along with those who promote secular pluralism, are considered suspect, the Other which must be confronted, exposed, and stopped. Under the Modi regime, the Hindu nationalist group, RSS,[66] of which he himself is a member, has been able to harass, bully, and intimidate religious minorities with impunity, despite the fact they have been connected with allegations of physical violence, vandalism, rape, and murder.[67] In an attempt to preserve Hindu culture and counter the perceived decline of the Hindu population, Christian groups, and especially missionaries, have been targeted as the enemy within.[68] 

Iran 

In discussing Iran, it must be readily noted that this country is experiencing radical shifts due to younger Iranians turning away from Islam toward Zoroastrianism, Baha’ism, Christianity, and even Buddhism, let alone their preference for a secular government.[69] As many have noted, there is a strong undercurrent of Persian nationalism which views the history of Iran (both real and imagined[70]) as exemplifying the apex of Islamic civilization, and her people as God’s chosen race who will one day lead the Muslim world.[71] For the time being, Iran remains a striking example of majority-led tyranny where Christians and religious minorities suffer under the oppression of Islamic nationalists.[72]

Islamic revivalists in Iran oppose secularism and Western philosophy and seek to “build a theocracy, an Islamic state constitutionally based and operated in full light of shari’ah as the guiding principle reflecting the Will of Allah.”[73] This religious fervor is often coupled with racial antagonism against groups perceived as not truly Iranian, and has produced a breeding ground for unspeakable atrocities against minority groups.[74] Due to the oppressive nature of Iranian law, the country has been highlighted by the United States and the United Nations as a place where minorities live under high risk of harassment, imprisonment, and execution.[75]

Bhutan 

The Kingdom of Bhutan is a small country in the eastern Himalayas with a population of less than a million people. In spite of its size, it has yet managed to take the 36^th spot on the Open Doors World Watch List due to high levels of persecution stemming from its strong Buddhist nationalism. Citizens are expected to follow the state religion, Mahayana Buddhism, and while religious freedom is ostensibly a constitutional right, the fervor for Buddhist culture and the preservation of its “spiritual heritage” has led to the persecution of Christians, especially if they have converted from Buddhism.[76]

Like Hinduism, Buddhism is usually marked by tolerance and peace; nevertheless, with the rise of ethnic nationalism in many South Asian countries, there has also been an observable rise in religious violence at the hands of Buddhist extremists under the influence of nationalist monks who have successfully politicized the religion and created an environment where non-Buddhists are treated like second-class citizens or worse.[77] As a distrusted minority, Christians are denied registration as an official religious group, meaning they are “not permitted to organize publicly, own property, raise funds, conduct outreach activities, or import literature.”[78] This oppressive environment has led Christians to practice self-censorship, avoid any religious imagery or symbolism, and perform secret baptisms at night in remote areas.[79]

The Juxtaposition of Christian and Non-Christian Nationalism

          The like-minded goals and tactics of religious nationalists around the world should be readily apparent; and when placed in juxtaposition with CN, the truth is revealed as in a mirror. There is a deep disparity between the Christian witness and CN—the two are manifestly at odds. Religious nationalism vilifies those who threaten an idealistic heritage and culture. Hindu, Islamic, Buddhist, and Christian nationalists all view themselves under attack, striving to preserve their sacred culture and take back their country from immigrants, secularists, and the principles of liberal democracy. India, Iran, and Bhutan provide examples of the Christian minority experience, where the church has no political influence and Christians suffer under the rule of majority-religion nationalists. As CN is reflected back on itself through non-Christian counterparts, it should serve as a potent warning to those who claim the crucified Christ as Lord.

A Clear and Present Danger 

          The danger of CN is not that Christians might be good patriotic citizens with a love of country; rather, the danger lies in beliefs and practices that are explicitly unchristian in any historical, traditional, and evangelical sense of the word. CN ideology contains the latent ingredients which create a dangerous fusion of political religion. Instead of exerting political power over perceived adversaries and minorities, Christians have a commission to proclaim Christ and a responsibility to adorn their lives with a righteous testimony that is appropriately reflective of the Gospel.

Christian Nationalism Strips the Gospel Bare

There are four basic problems with Wolfe’s CN, which strip the Gospel bare of its fundamental principles of love, mercy, and grace. First, it emphasizes ethnic particularity. Wolfe claims that “the instinct to love the familiar more than the foreign is good.”[80] It should be incontrovertible among an evangelical audience that this view of love is contrary to the Christian ideal, and is nothing more than a well-worn path to prejudice and racism. Second, it emphasizes Christian political power rather than Gospel propagation, which amounts to supplanting Christ’s kingdom with a CN state. Third, it undermines religious liberty. In his resentment toward secularism and liberal democracy, Wolfe promotes limited liberty for the few; that is, the freedom of worship, let alone the freedom of speech, is only granted to adherents of the state church. Finally, it undermines the Christian witness. Since CN is motivated by the goal of Christian power, there is little, if any, sense that Christ is to be glorified through the testimony of Christians and the Church. Foremost in Wolfe’s CN thought-world is the conquering of the enemy, that is, those who promote pluralism and liberal democracy.

For Wolfe, nationalism generally and CN particularly are one in the same, with CN having the higher goal of accomplishing its means “in Christ,” by which he means for and by Christian Nationalists to the exclusion of all others. Underscoring the inherent hazards of such thinking, a 2017 analysis of 37 countries demonstrated that religious discrimination in Christian-majority Western democracies is on the rise. The survey revealed that “no country in the study lacked at least one minority which was subject to societal religious discrimination,” and further highlighted “the extent to which antipathy toward the religious other is a common element of society.”[81] CN fuels these underlying political tensions, stokes the fires of prejudice, and creates a nigh irresistible temptation among Christians who are already leaning toward far-right policies.

A Baptist Counterbalance

          This paper has illustrated the imbalanced and unbiblical nature of CN. Before presenting a balanced and biblical answer to the problems it poses to the Christian witness, it must first be understood why CN in both mild and extreme forms is gripping large segments of the church, both Catholic and evangelical. In the United States there has been a steady decline of Christianity coupled with a steady rise in diversity of race and religion. Moreover, racial conflicts, identity politics, and LGBTQIA+ issues have taken centerstage in America, both in the news as well as in entertainment and pop culture. Time would fail to recount how pervasive this is in society, but the important point is how invasive it feels to conservative Christians.[82] Whatever one makes of the American “culture wars” this concern should not go unnoticed, but more so, requires a reasoned response to counter the seductive attraction of CN.

The Baptist Faith and Message and Religious Liberty 

          For Southern Baptists, one need only to look to the denomination’s statement of faith and practice as published in the Baptist Faith and Message (2000). The introductory committee report acknowledges that “Baptists cherish and defend religious liberty,”[83] and importantly stresses that “The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work,” and further that “a free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.”[84]

This high esteem for religious liberty and the free exercise of religion, which handily complements the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, is roundly criticized by Wolfe, who confesses that Baptist theology and tradition is a marked problem for the core tenets of CN.[85] Wolfe argues that religious liberty was only meant to keep the peace within a “pan-protestant civil order.”[86] He further argues that religious liberty is a misnomer in a pluralistic society, acting as the “soft power of liberalism” which is used to stifle the Christian religion.[87]

In Wolfe’s estimation, Christians are under a secular occupation, which they will only fully understand when they deconstruct their mistaken notions of American liberty which views freedom as universal and treats equality and diversity as virtuous.[88] Under Wolfe’s CN state, the government would suppress false religion, since “non-Christians…are not entitled to political equality” and may be subject to civil action, including capital punishment, for persistent and subversive conduct, such as proselytizing or blasphemy.[89] It should be stressed that Wolfe also calls for “appropriate action” against dissenting Christians, which may require “active suppression” depending on the circumstances.[90]

Nevertheless, The BFM affirms the separation of Church and state while also encouraging believers to seek out ways to bring their society “under the sway of the principles of righteousness, truth, and brotherly love.”[91] In this way, Southern Baptists provide for corporate religious separation and individual Christian engagement. Rather than promoting CN, the BFM unabashedly promotes religious liberty and the Christian witness, all with the stated goal “to win the lost to Christ by verbal witness undergirded by a Christian lifestyle, and by other methods in harmony with the gospel of Christ.”[92]

A Brief Word on Secular Government

          Anglican scholar Michael Bird has weighed in on CN quite extensively over the last few years. His arguments for Western concepts of liberal democracy are worthy of inclusion here, especially as he seeks to remind evangelical Christians of its importance in free societies, insisting that “Freedom must be based on principle not popular whim.”[93] Bird argues for a “confident pluralism” which is centered in “expressive liberty,” that is, “a presumption in favor of individuals and groups living their lives as they see fit and according to their own understanding of what gives life meaning and value.”[94]

This may seem elementary to many Americans, whether Christian or not, but while such ideals befit principles of liberty, they come with built-in conflict. Bird admits that a diverse society will inevitably create a “messy” political environment consisting of “chaotic interaction in the public square,” but argues that in practicing the principles of freedom, a society “must do its utmost to honor the principles that limit the possibility of coercive practices and intimidation.”[95] In an age of increasing polarization, Bird leans on NT principles and pleads for a political vision which harmonizes with the biblical values of love and tolerance, concluding that “victory in pluralism is not vanquishing your adversaries, but winning their respect, living in peace with them, and affirming their right to be who they are!”[96]

Confronting Christian Nationalism Pastorally

Admittedly, American CN is not tethered to religious observance,[97] but since it predominantly affects church goers, it must be addressed in the sphere of Christian practice.[98] Drew Strait is helpful in this regard. He keenly observes that CN is a threat to the witness of the church, and argues that it must be confronted pastorally.[99] Since CN adherents commonly hold strong views of biblical literalism,[100] he calls for “preaching the whole life of Jesus,” especially His ethical teachings, as an effective tool for disorienting the CN worldview.[101] When confronted with the conflict between CN and the ethics of Christ, a person who believes the Bible to be the perfect word of God, may be challenged to rethink their CN worldview. Indeed, cognitive dissonance can be far more effective in dismantling the CN worldview than debating political policies and social trends.[102] The Bible can provide the necessary common ground between Christian faith and CN, and in combination with sound biblical interpretation, this method may inoculate against CN ideology and will help adherents to deconstruct such beliefs.[103]

The Example of Paul 

Looking to the Apostle Paul as an example, Adam Wyatt affirms that Christians need not abandon their love of country, but they must learn that they are dual citizens with loyalties to the kingdom of God that supersede their political loyalties. In his words, Christians have a “supranational identity that is not confined to the nation,” and must therefore adjust their love of country in the light of their duty to the kingdom of God.[104] Wyatt shows how Paul’s sense of patriotism and citizenship was rooted in God’s sovereignty and viewed finite political power “through the lens of the second coming of Christ.”[105] Wyatt reminds Christian Americans that they are sojourners “through a wonderful country that is not truly our home,” and that one may be a grateful and proud patriot as long as their love of country is defined through a reasoned evaluation of biblical teaching.[106] This approach allows for love of homeland while keeping the Gospel free of political pollution.

Conclusion

Adorning the Gospel in political theory has only ever served to strip the Gospel bare of its witness for Christ. The answer for the present age is not Christian nationalism but a mission-minded Christian citizenship, by which the Gospel is not hindered or perverted by provincial prejudice, but bolstered by a global evangelicalism that stands “as a witness to all the nations” regardless of national heritage (Matt 24:14). Christians must not permit political influence or motivation to detract from their witness for Christ and the fulfillment of His commission. Wolfe believes that adopting “a ‘radical’ principle of inclusion is to oppose God,”[107] but the cross itself symbolizes “self-sacrifice, service, and radical inclusion.”[108] CN strips the Gospel bare of its witness in opposition to the command of Scripture to adorn it with a testimony that reflects the love, mercy, and grace of the Lord Jesus Himself. If eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, it must be no less for the Christian witness.