Beware Of Christian Nationalism! Say…Christian Leaders?

Beware Of Christian Nationalism! Say…Christian Leaders?

List all the realistic political terrors in operation or on the horizon. Big Brother surveillance from government and corporations. Tolerance of Antifa—in government and corporations. Just plain government and corporations.

Universities “studies” departments, ideological purges, race wars, abortion, Bake That Cake!, men in the girl’s showers, blank slatism, euthanasia, mandatory Pride, burgeoning oligarchy, massive illegal border crossings, massive planned border crossings of peoples completely unlike the natives, feminism, vanishing birth rates, gender theory, Christian nationalism.

Christian nationalism?

Good joke, eh! We’ve been tracking the global vanishing of Christianity for a number of years. One example will do: Traditional Christianity All But Kaput In Western Europe, And Even USA.

Quoting myself: “[A] cautious summary, acknowledging the uncertainties, and admitting there are far more tests than these for traditionalism, might conclude that Western Europe has about 7-8% of traditional Christians remaining, while it’s maybe 14-18% Americans. Two to one, Americans over Europeans, sounds about right.”

Nobody I know of is disputing these figures.

Yet the fear a Christian theocracy lurks around the corner grows in direct proportion to the diminishment of Christian influence.

Not too long ago there was a debate among Catholics about integralism, a term which is variously interpreted but which means some kind of oversight of government by the Church.

Panic ensued. Pearls were clutched, couches fainted on, paper bags breathed into, tweets were tweeted. Essays poured out warning about forced conversions, bloodier Inquisitions, and loss of freedom of religion.

Given the short list of the political realities above, the chance of an integralist society actually coming into being by forced design is as likely as the Knesset announcing they have all just converted to Hinduism.

It’s fun to talk about what a Catholic monarchical society would look like, but without divine intervention on the scale of a continental Sodom and Gomorrah treatment, it ain’t gonna happen.

Enter the exceptionally nervous “Christian leaders [who] are standing up to the threat of Christian nationalism.”

The threat of Christian nationalism? A threat say Christian leaders? Leaders?

Pardon my sputtering, but it’s tough to assimilate.

Now I’ve read about them, but I’ve never actually seen a stampede. I don’t know what spooked these Christian-in-name to panic and bolt away from Christianity-in-Reality.

In their statement, the only surprise is that it doesn’t make demands. They instead have plaints like “Government should not prefer one religion over another or religion over nonreligion.”

This is poppycock at it fruitiest. Government’s very business is as law giver—and law enforcer. It must by definition prefer one or some religions over others. Ours does.

Yes, there are those strange words about Congress not setting up an official state religion, but that doesn’t mean it ever stopped government from being staffed, as it is now staffed, by a majority of people who share a common religion. It isn’t now Christianity, and won’t be again, it seems. But it is still something. I say it is the religion of Man; others call it Puritanism, a term with which I have no disagreement.

Certainly Christianity, little-o orthodox Christianity, aligned as it is with the Natural Law, would be much preferred over what we have now, and what we’re descending into. Maybe you, if you’re not a Christian, don’t agree with that. But you’d surely expect professed Christians to assent to it.

Alas, no.

“Whether we worship at a church, mosque, synagogue, or temple, America has no second-class faiths.”

Certainly it does—and should. We do not want to encourage worship of, say, Santa Muerta, or voodoo, or witchcraft, or Satanism, or Planned Parenthood, or so on and so forth. Yet under “equality”, these are all one.

The crew of “leaders” who are pushing this have short bios. The first is Rev Dr Paul Baxley, who said “To suggest that the church needs the protection of the state in order to flourish and thrive is idolatrous.” History used to be a required subject in seminaries, where old Dr Paul would have learned of such subjects as Constantine and the Holy Roman Empire. I imagine they can’t fit these courses in given the requirements of carbon footprint studies and sodomy appreciation.

A Sister Simone Campbell said “Christian nationalism is unpatriotic and unchristian.” This is an indication people of importance (unlike us, dear readers) never listen to what they say. If Christian nationalism were a reality, which it isn’t and won’t be, it would be both patriotic and Christian. Anyone up for explaining this to Sister?

It goes on an on. Not a soul among them willing to say that being a Christian is what one should be.

And that is why where will be no Christian nationalism.

To support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal (in any amount) click here


  1. Sheri

    These are NOT Christian leaders. They are leaders lying about being Christians. Cowardly, sniveling sell-outs, worshipping the world and Satan, not God.

    “Whether we worship at a church, mosque, synagogue, or temple, America has no second-class faiths.”
    Except Christianity, of course. Again, liars and demon-worshippers all. The left and much of the church is nothing but Satan’s army.

    Of course, stupid, uneducated fools think this will lead to Utopia and, again, you can’t fix stupid.

  2. This is the parallel track of the “National Conservatism” influence operation.

    “National Conservatism” is the influence payload of a foreign power, force-fed into American culture by neocon influence operators and Willing Accomplices.

    The goal is to denigrate Normal American nationalism–that is a national pride and identity built on the reality of our national heritage–the ultimate manifestation of the power and glory of WASP culture.

    The foreign power, working in concert with their PC-Prog and neocon allies, denigrates all elements of WASP: White, Anglo-Saxon, and Protestant (for their purposes, Christianity. They don’t differentiate between branches of Christianity–all must be denigrated, in their operation).

    The ultimate goal is to destroy the possibility for Americans to be proud of, identify with, celebrate, or perpetuate any aspect of WASP.

    American churches are so imbued with the neocon/PC-Prog destruction program, the new twist you report on here–denigration of their own raison d’etre is just the cherry on top of a steaming pile of decades self-debasement.

    Of course, a religious national identity is kosher, for one religiously-based nation. Not just kosher, but to be celebrated and revered.

    For us silly WASPs? Shut up.

    The manager of the National Conservatism influence operation, chairman of the fake “American” influence operation, the Edmund Burke Foundation:

    “Yoram Hazony is an Israeli philosopher, Bible scholar and political theorist. He is President of The Herzl Institute[1] in Jerusalem. Hazony’s book The Virtue of Nationalism (Basic Books, 2018) was selected as the Conservative Book of the Year for 2019. His Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture[2] (Cambridge, 2012) received the second place PROSE Award for best book in Theology and Religion from the American Association of Publishers.

    Hazony founded The Shalem Center in Jerusalem in 1994, and was president and then provost until 2012. He designed the curriculum for Shalem College, Israel’s first liberal arts college, established in 2013.”

  3. John Watkins

    You’re right, as far as you go. But the ‘influence payload’ you mention was already delivered when the Puritans landed. They were the original ‘Christian’ Zionists, and they were the ones who were out to destroy European Christendom (aka, the RC’s). And they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, in Europe at least. But the problem is, as Samson came to understand, that victory comes at a dear price.
    As smart as you are (and you are), you’re still so blind to the reality that built Europe. WASP’s never get it- they are their own worst enemy.

  4. @John

    In the seventeenth century, the RC wasn’t European Christendom; it was Islamicized Christendom–that is, Christendom that had absorbed Islamic beliefs about forced conversion, controlling the government, torturing and killing infidels, etc. Original European Christianity didn’t do any of those things, nor did the RC after the seventeenth (or maybe eighteenth) century. The closest they came in early Christianity was exiling church leaders who taught against the official dogma. The Islamicized Christianity of the eleventh to the seventeenth centuries led to untold suffering in Europe, just as you would expect of any religion influenced by Islam.

  5. Peter Aiello

    A Christian theocracy may not happen with present day Christianity. When Christ returns, things will change.

  6. John,

    Thanks for your note.

    Sorry, not talking about “building Europe.” The issue here is the United States of America, founding, building, creating, settling, uniting, and keeping it.

    WASPs were the founders of the USA.

    Focusing on Puritans is a distraction. Normal Englishmen–Anglican WASPs and the Scotch-Irish stock that became the soul of the country–were in Jamestown, Virginia and on Roanoke Island, Carolina decades before the Puritan Pilgrims accidentally founded Massachusetts. Virginia’s role as the heart and soul of the USA was stolen by the dastardly Yankees after the Civil War. We just celebrated the 400th anniversary of the first elected legislative body in Virginia.

    So, yes, the Puritans were a piece of America. But, no, their Zionism and communism was not Normal American culture. It was a regional cult. Their rigid Zion-based belief system had pretty much burned itself out by the time we overthrew the British colonial yoke. Yes, there were remnants here and there, but the religious revivals that swept the country in the 1800s were seldom Puritan, nor were they based on Zionism.

    Think of Walter Raleigh, John Smith, Robert E. Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, George Washington, Daniel Boone, Davey Crockett, Stonewall Jackson when you want an example of a Normal Americans. Not Puritans, not Pilgrims, not Zionist. Energetic, Protestant Anglo-Saxon (mixed with Celtic and Germanic) stock that streamed down the Shenandoah Valley, through the Cumberland Gap, down to Florida, and across to the Mississippi. That’s Normal America. They were God-fearing, hard-fighting, pious and blasphemous, hard-living, family-centered pioneers.

    Only after the Civil War was the myth of Pilgrims and Puritans being the founders foisted on the country. That set the stage for a long string of foreign influence operations. The first wildly successful one was the English operation to insert into our culture a perception that English culture/royalty/language is better than our American culture. This culminated in the Brits poking, prodding, and influencing America into fighting European wars for them–twice in one century.

    Once other foreigners saw how gullible and easy to manipulate the new power on the stage was, several others began operations. The most successful, though it took 80 years to come bear fruit, and too late for the original planners’ schemes, was the Comintern’s insertion of the belief system that became Politically Correct Progressivism.

    Today, the massively successful foreign influence operation, forcing both political parties to toe the line, is the one that has America destroying all their enemies in the Middle East, one by one, and multiple at a time, kow-towing to their culture, and outlawing criticism of their culture.

    So, no, it’s not the Pilgrims’ fault.

  7. John Watkins

    David Gudeman-

    Well, exactly my point. Christendom was built before the 17th century (starting when the Emperors moved to Constantinople). And the 17th century was the thick of the Protestant Revolt. So, what do you expect? As for Islam, yes, they caused some re-action, but again, in the face of an invasion, what the heck do you expect- beanbag?

  8. My point was that Protestants had real grievances, not against Christianity, but against the RCC which had taken on many of the worst characteristics of Islam. Regardless of how the contagion happened, it did happen, and Christians all over Europe were suffering because of it.

    And it played right into Muslim hands. At a time when most Christians near the Mediterranean could expect, at some time in their life, to see their home burned and their mother, wife, daughter, or son taken by Arab raiders to be sex slaves, the RCC was using their military assets trying to stamp out a movement that disagreed with the RCC on how much weight to give written scriptures vs tradition.

  9. John Watkins

    Um… David, the Islamic invasion (and attendant behavior) began in the 600’s. Almost a millenium before Luther, et al. Please read a little history before you begin to slander the Church. Yes, there was corruption in the Church, at many different times. So what? The Church is perfect, her members are not. Learn the distinction.

  10. @Watkins

    I just finished reading “Mohamed and Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a Controversy”, so I’m pretty up on the history.

    Rather than assuming ignorance when you don’t understand someone, maybe you ask a question to clarify. As it is, I have no idea why you think the date of the original Muslim invasions counters anything I said, nor why you think what I said slanders the RCC. How can a fact be a slander?

    Also, attempting to order me to “learn” a matter of faith like “the Church is perfect, her members are not” strikes me as … well as just as condescending and passive aggressive as the rest of your comment.

  11. John Watkins

    Well, I’ve never been accused of anything but Agressive-agressive, so I’ll take that as a compliment. Sorry, just my nature. Nothing personal here.
    As for the topic of the Church’s indefectability, I understand you may not understand the concept. But that is the heart of The Faith. You need to explore it. Somewhere, there has to be a universal truth. And only one position or faith can occupy that spot. Do you agree? If that is so, then who do you nominate to occupy that spot? Just based on past performance (and current existence, however marred), who would that be?

  12. @Watkins: “Somewhere, there has to be a universal truth. And only one position or faith can occupy that spot. Do you agree?”

    I agree that there are universal truths and that some people know some universal truths. That doesn’t imply that there is any human institution that is without error–in fact, I consider the idea to be a rebellion against the clear teaching of scripture.

    Nothing on earth is perfect, and the RCC in particular, by copious evidence, is clearly not perfect.

    Just to stop you from assuming I am missing the point, I should add that I am aware of certain RCC arguments of the form: “X is a property normally subject to evidence, and although the evidence says that X is false, yet there is some metaphysical or miraculous sense in which X is true”. I have never found such arguments remotely persuasive.

  13. John Watkins

    Your line of reasoning seems to lead one to assume that Jesus should have rebelled against the theocratic state of Israel because of the clearly errant behavior of many (most?) of its leaders (High Priests, Pharisees, Saducees, etc). This seems at direct odds with His own words and more importantly, His actions (…obedient unto death). He never denounced The Law, only its caretakers. Yet to have ‘The Law’ (of either testament) requires a caretaker class. Otherwise you get fragmented and falsified versions of that conserved truth. In fact, there is no greater testimony to those truths than the contrast between them and the behavior of the caretakers.Thus, both elements seem necessary to me. Does this make sense?

  14. @John: “Your line of reasoning seems to lead one to assume that Jesus should have rebelled against the theocratic state of Israel because of the clearly errant behavior of many (most?) of its leaders”

    He did just that, which is why they crucified him. And the Levitical order had their authority directly from scripture, which the RCC does not; that is, there is no scripture that says the bishop of Rome has any special authority, nor even that there should be bishops that control multiple congregations.

    I’ll add that one of Jesus’s primary accusations against the Pharisees is that they held tradition to be an authority like scripture–the same complaint Protestants make against the RCC.

    “Yet to have ‘The Law’ (of either testament) requires a caretaker class.”

    Not according to Jeremiah 31:33: “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people”. It sounds like the caretaker class (the priesthood) has been rendered obsolete–which is exactly what Protestants believe. If God intended to miraculously prevent error, he could do so in the heart of every believer as easily as in church leaders.

    “Otherwise you get fragmented and falsified versions of that conserved truth.”

    Sadly, yes. That is a consequence of the fact that there is nothing perfect on Earth and that God has chosen not to miraculously intervene. But the alternative to fragmented congregations, many of which follow false doctrines, is a monolithic institution following false doctrines and using violence to prevent people from correcting the errors. At least with a free-enterprise church structure, someone whose conscience is troubled by a false doctrine can go elsewhere. The idea that God has somehow prevented the RCC from entering into doctrinal error is a matter of faith (unsupported by scripture) that no one not in the RCC shares.

  15. John Watkins

    Fair enough, you are where you are (and I as well). Although I still see scripture that empowers Peter (although we obviously differ on his successors). Would you agree, though, that among those who assent to admitting these powers (according to Scripture), that he (& They) do exercise this power legitimately? In other words, since no faction can be held to be perfect, Protestant or Catholic, then the Pope’s legitimacy within the bounds of the RC is as authentic as any other faction’s leaders?
    Also, just curious- how do you view the Samaritans? Were they as authentic as their Judean cousins?

  16. @John: “Would you agree, though, that among those who assent to admitting these powers (according to Scripture), that he (& They) do exercise this power legitimately?”

    I’m not sure I understand the question, but I’ll take a shot at it. As an institution, the RCC has certain rules, and I acknowledge that according to those rules, the Pope is the leader. On the other hand, what scripture tells us about church leadership is that there should be a local council of elders who are to be respected and deferred to, but they aren’t said to have any miraculous access to knowledge and there isn’t any appointment of a single top leader.

    Scripture also doesn’t say that the apostles are supposed to have successors, nor is anyone in scripture granted apostolic authority without performing many visible miracles to back up their claim to having miraculous access to knowledge.

    So, I’d say that granting temporal authority to the Pope is merely an organizational convenience, while granting spiritual authority to him is recklessly unwise. No one who cannot prove his authority with many visible miracles should be trusted like that.

  17. John Watkins


    Yes, you got my intent correctly. Thank you for your analysis. But I’m now left wondering how anybody can have any authority (since I’m not seeing a lot of miracles, anywhere). Doesn’t this eventually leave all the sheep leaderless? Defenseless against false doctrines? I don’t get it. Sorry.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *