Coalition of Cowards

The Gospel Coalition specializes in taking the log out of their neighbor’s eye

That “Jericho March” struck a nerve. Many from our refined Christian commentariat found much to sneer at: the unbecoming testicular enthusiasm, the spectacle of religious leaders sputtering into Shofars in imitation of the ancient Hebrews’ devastating blow to the wall of Jericho, the blending of religious rhetoric and political objectives.

But the tisk-tisking from our cultured, co-religionist betters reached a climax over at The Gospel Coalition, which offered two impotent polemics against the “Jericho March” and the growing “Christian Nationalism” that undergirds it. In attempting to dissuade their readers from the so-called “Trump Cult” they end up revealing that they have no clue about, well, anything.

Apolitical Midwittism

In the first article, “The Cult of Christian Trumpism,” Michael Horton assures us that he’s “said quite a lot over the past several decades in criticism of those on the left (as well as the right) for trying to make Jesus a mascot in the culture wars,” and then explains that his “public calling is not to bind Christian consciences to my own political positions.” But he’s concerned that “as a minister of the Word,” he sees “that a line has been crossed into rank spiritual adultery.”

A professor of theology at Westminster Seminary, Horton is certainly well-credentialed. He has an M.A. from his current employer and a Ph.D. from the University of Oxford. He’s been a research fellow at Yale University Divinity School, and he’s a member of various societies, including the American Academy of Religion and the Evangelical Theological Society. Yet, somehow, he never learned the first principle of all knowledge: Contrary propositions cannot both be true at the same time in the same respect.

Perhaps it is because I am just an ignorant Twitter pseud, but I can’t figure it out. He claims he is not going to “bind” his Christianity to a political position — heaven forbid! — yet he will bind his Christianity to condemning those who do bind their Christianity to political positions. But… condemning a political position is itself a political position. He’s doing the very thing he condemns others of doing. Maybe this is what one learns in the rarefied halls of elite education institutions.

My hunch is that he believes he is condemning certain political positions from an apolitical stance. My hunch, though, would not excuse Horton’s contradiction. It would, though, prove his idiocy. Nothing is apolitical. By nature, we are political animals. Choosing to be apolitical turns out to be a political position. We are bound together by our nature and mutual pursuit of the good.

There is no avoiding the central political question: How ought we to live together? Aristotle suggests that those who live without a state are either a beast or a god. In pretending to mount the holy mountain of apolitical commentary, Horton seems to think himself a god. But in so doing, he inevitably contributes to his political community and his words have a bearing in our political arrangement.

He rests his entire argument on a contradiction, a logical impossibility, and so rational people should not give it further thought. But to see just how clueless The Gospel Coalition is, let’s examine what other nonsense he attempts to pass as insightful counsel.

The Myth of the Myth of the Christian Nation

He asserts that “a ‘Christian nation’ other than the universal church; of the gospel as a social, moral, or political agenda; and of saving faith as something that can be legislated and enforced — must be rejected,” and so assures us that rejecting Christian nationalism rests on “biblical grounds.” My dear Horton can now pin a badge of historical illiteracy next to his ribbon of logical ineptitude.

First, while true, it is anachronistic to point out that the Bible doesn’t promote a Christian nation. The New Testament was written by persecuted Christians lacking any and all political power. Does that imply that Christians should always and forever forswear political power? If given the chance to prevent a great evil or accomplish a great good with political power, should Christians hide under a rock?

Was the “political agenda” of ending slavery not a righteous cause because it required political power?

Is the current “social agenda” of safeguarding religious schools from transgender ideology not a fight worth fighting because it requires — plug your ears! — voting for one political party over another?

Second, of course one cannot “coerce” Christian faith. Does Dr. Horton actually think that’s what the “Jericho March” was about? Everyone knows you can’t coerce faith. But Christian nationalists also know that missionaries have stopped indigenous tribes from performing ritual sacrifices, and we can again coerce women and their doctors from killing their unborn children. Should we not?

Clearly, Horton thinks pretending to be apolitical is an adequate substitute for thinking politically, which requires the virtues of justice and prudence. Instead of taking that narrow road of forming cogent and ethical political argument, he takes the wide road of expressing outrage:

What we’re witnessing on the national stage right now is disgraceful. In fact, the only word for it is blasphemy — the sacrilege not of secularists marching on Washington to take away religious freedom but of evangelicals marching on Washington to perpetuate a cult. We might have ignored this as a spectacle, a performance by a handful of voices in opposition to the Constitutional system of our republic. But I feel conscience-bound as a minister of the Word to warn against what can only be considered a heresy — indeed, a cult within a certain segment of evangelicalism. It has arisen over many decades and will no doubt be around for many more to come. (emphasis mine)

Blasphemies, cults, and heresies, oh my! But notice how there’s no argument behind the charged vocabulary. He totally misses the point of the Jericho Rally. If there was election fraud, would it not be good to expose the lie? Should God not be called upon in the fight for what’s good and true? Should it not be something accompanied by prayers? Is it not a righteous fight?

Leftist Envy

Horton is unwilling to grapple with the rally and Christian nationalism on their own terms. Instead, he engages in the rhetorical tactics of the Left: Assume the place of an imagined political neutrality, and blast those who take a different position with epithets. Blasphemy! Racist! Sacrilege! Homophobe! Cult! Hate group!

His true agenda comes to light. He writes, “the hypocrisy of some evangelicals has been exposed to a cynical and watching world. ‘You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you”’ (Rom. 2:23–24). Here, he inadvertently exposes his moral cowardice. He doesn’t want to fight politically and he sneers at those who do because he doesn’t want to be accused of “blaspheming the name of God.”

In Horton’s world, earnest secularists in good faith would consider going to church if only Christians didn’t vote Republican. In his world, it is Christians trying to do something about the evils of abortion, the sexual revolution, the corruption of the ruling class, who cause the world to hate God. In the real world, though, secularists live in darkness and hate the light. They hate Christians because they hate God. (“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.” -John 15:18)

Furthermore, with Oxford-Ph.D. condescension, he tells us that “the ‘good news’ is not moral improvement or a Christian society or any political system — whether democratic or totalitarian, capitalist or socialist. It’s the announcement that in his incarnation, obedient life, sacrificial death, and resurrection Jesus Christ has accomplished redemption from sin, death, and hell and reconciled sinners with God.”

Does he not think Christians know the difference between the gospel itself and how the gospel informs one’s political life? Imagine this midwit lecturing Bonhoeffer: “You know Dietrich, the good news is about Jesus Christ’s sacrifice, not about trying to stop a ruthless psychopathic tyrant hellbent on genocide and world domination.”

He might even suggest to Bonhoeffer that his plotting with the German underground and the UK against Hitler shows that Bonhoeffer doesn’t fully trust the Holy Spirit. After all, Horton asserts that “in scrambling for political privilege, the church loses confidence in the Spirit’s power working through this gospel and communicates to the world that it requires worldly supports for its success.”

So if Horton had his way, Bonhoeffer ought to have foregone “worldly support” and simply prayed Hitler out of power. Likewise, we should not be emboldened to courageous action through our prayers, but rather slink back in cowardice for the Spirit’s power will work its magic.

Horton then laments the “Trump cult” coalition of “end-times conspiracy” theorists and “prosperity gospel” hucksters. But when you’re in a fight against secularists who want to expand the abortion regime, teach your children that their feelings determine their genders, protect the “rights” of pornographers, close down churches, and expunge Christians from the public square, we can link arms with a few whackadoos. Horton seems more concerned about not associating with the theological impure than with fighting for what’s good and true. This is a political movement, not an ecumenical council.

Principled Cowardice

As if Horton’s analysis couldn’t be more clueless about the realities of our current political and cultural moment, The Gospel Coalition follows it up with an even more delusional rebuke of Christian Nationalism. This time Thomas Kidd attempts to say something coherent in the essay “Christian Nationalism vs. Christian Patriotism.”

Any clear-thinking commentary would take the time to lay out a definition of what one condemns. Kidd clearly is not up to the task, and even admits that in his estimation, “it is often not clear whether ‘Christian nationalism’ is referring mainly to devotion to the American nation, to the Republican Party, or to an individual politician.”

What Is Nationalism?

So allow me to do Kidd’s job for him: Christian nationalism refers to the belief that nations are real, natural in fact, arising for the sake of establishing a common good among its citizens, and that this common good ought to be rooted in a traditional Christian understanding of what is good, true, and beautiful. Kidd doesn’t know if Christian nationalism refers to devotion to America.

Well, of course it does, as America is a nation and Americans must consider what kind of nation we will be. But Christian nationalism doesn’t refer to America alone, but to any nation. National and cultural differences are real. Who wouldn’t love to see a Christian America alongside a Christian Poland, a Christian Hungary? Wouldn’t we love all the nations of the earth to be Christian?

Kidd doesn’t know if Christian nationalism refers to devotion to the Republican Party. He doesn’t seem to know that at this current moment, only (some) Republicans, it seems, are interested in operating within a traditional Christian metaphysics. So yes, as of now, as long as Democracts want to shout their abortions and mutilate our children’s genitalia, Christian nationalism is on the side of the GOP. But compared to the recent past of the Reagan era, Christian Nationalism is also a force calling the GOP to heel.

Kidd doesn’t know if Christian nationalism refers to an individual. Of course it does. Christ is at the center of Christian nationalism. We as a nation must first bow before the savior before we arrange politically. And what about the obsession with Trump? Christian nationalists know Trump is not Christ, but we also know that at this moment in time, he is the only politician with the gumption and tenacity to fight back against radical and dangerous forces fomenting on the left.

Instead of attempting to offer any sort of conceptual clarity on the terms he pretends to be an expert on, he merely quotes Benedict Anderson’s definition of a nation as “an imagined community” as his flimsy straw man. He attempts to make some distinction between “Christian nationalism (bad)” and “Christian patriotism (good in moderation).” And what is so bad about this nationalism he knows nothing about?

He writes, “nations may be vast in geography and population, many of us cherish such intense patriotic commitment that we would lay down our lives (or those of our children) to defend our country, and to promote its power around the globe,” and then concludes: “Obviously, traditional Christians ought to limit that kind of nationalistic fervor.”

Hold on. Christians should limit the fervor that leads one to want to “lay down our lives to defend our country”? Is he serious? Doesn’t he know that “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends”? Does he not know that friendship is the basis of political communities? Would he not lay down his life for his family or his friends? Does he not know that the nation is our political family, and our fellow citizens our friends? Or is he just a coward?

But, I can hear him protest: It’s unseemly for Christians to “promote” their nation’s “power around the globe.” Well, sure. But read the news, buddy. Trump has been pulling troops out from all over the Middle East to praise from the nationalist crowds and shrieks from establishment Republicans and Democrats. It is Christian Nationalism that is reducing the US global military presence.

Resident Coward

Kidd seems to think he is saying something profound when he writes, “As ‘strangers and exiles on the earth,’ our ultimate allegiance is to Christ’s kingdom. Our love for a non-American brother or sister in Christ should exceed our comradeship with unbelieving American patriots, whose numbers are legion.”

I’m not going to argue about who we should love more. That’s a stupid rhetorical move that avoids the political question. Like Horton, Kidd attempts to evade the inevitable: How ought we to live together, within the political communities in which we find ourselves? Of course American Christians need to love, pray for, and support Christians all over the world. But that doesn’t mean we exclude thinking about how we should cultivate the common good within our own national borders.

And Kidd can express love for his fellow Christian around the world all he likes, but we don’t learn to love people in the abstract. Rather the school of love starts in one’s home, and then extends to the neighborhood and beyond to the nation and then to the world. If we don’t love our families, how are we to love our neighbors? If we don’t love our neighbors, how are we to love our nation? If we don’t love our nation, how are we to love the world?

Kidd eventually does recognize the inevitability of political loyalties, but laments that “measured patriotism still seems appropriate, and somewhat unavoidable for most Christians.” I guess we do have to have some degree of patriotism. Sigh. But notice his total ineptness in distinguishing what this unavoidable and regrettable patriotism is in contrast to the “nationalism” boogeyman. All he offers is reference to scripture that we ought to follow the laws of the land (Romans 13) and live in peace with our neighbors (1 Timothy 2).

White Self-Hatred

Without any grasp of our political moment or politics in general, Kidd also falls into the divisive and dishonest rhetorical assaults perfected by the Left. Take note how he needlessly labels Christian nationalism as “white”: “since ‘evangelicals’ (usually meaning white religious Republicans) are the Americans most often accused of Christian nationalism, it would behoove those of us who still accept the ‘evangelical’ label to consider nationalism’s history.”

And he does it again: “White evangelical leaders, especially Billy Graham, framed the Cold War as a conflict between the Christian values of America and the atheism of the Soviets.” (And this is a critique because the Soviets weren’t an atheist regime? They didn’t have nukes pointed at us? I am confused.)

And again: “White people have been the primary, though not exclusive, purveyors of Christian nationalism, partly because they have been great beneficiaries of American national power.“

Does Kidd ever offer evidence that this growing Christian Nationalism is “white”? What does he even mean by this? What’s more, does he even consider how idiotic it is to racialize a political movement that is consciously transracial? Christian nationalism is, in fact, the very antidote to both the White Nationalist movement of Richard Spencer and the Black Nationalist movement of Black Lives Matter. How can there be “racial reconciliation” in our country if Kidd and others like him parrot the racial rhetoric of those who want to perpetually shame white people for being white?

Without defining “nationalism” he is unable to explain why it is “bad.” Instead he simply asserts that it is so: “America has long nurtured more problematic forms of Christian nationalism.” And what is the example of “Christian nationalism’s history” he wants us to consider?

“In many ways, the fight against Soviet communism set the modern template for white evangelical engagement with politics.” Yes, the fight against one of the most murderous and satanic political regimes in world history is an example of our Christian nationalism’s “problematic” history. In what moral universe does he live?

Offering no real examples of this “problematic” nationalism, he then attempts to associate it with evil regimes: “Communist nations like North Korea also engender virulent forms of nationalism, since official atheism needs transcendent national commitments to fill the void usually occupied by theistic civil religion.”

We Live in a Nation, Man

Kidd at least has the wherewithal to see that atheism combined with nationalism is “virulent” but seems too dense to understand that “Christian” nationalism provides a metaphysical alternative to atheist state-worship. As Christians, our ultimate allegiance is to Christ, our political allegiance to our nation. Our Christianity, while binding us to all the saints across space and time, is not an excuse to disband our national loyalties and forsake our fellow citizens. On the contrary, we should seek to make our laws and customs in accord with the divine law and cultivate the virtue of our fellow countrymen.

If we’re going to have nations, should they operate within a Christian metaphysics or not?

Since Kidd has demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that he knows not of what he speaks, allow me to explain as clearly as possible the claims of Christian nationalism. They are rather simple:

1. Nations are natural as families are natural
2. Being natural, they are the most effective means of securing the common good
3. Our pursuit of the common good should be informed by traditional Christianity

Without acknowledging, let alone refuting any of these premises, Kidd, Horton, The Gospel Coalition and pearl-clutching Christians of all stripes concede political power to forces that want to eradicate any semblance of Christianity from the public and political sphere.

In short, they’re playing with hell fire.