A Recurring Theme for Signal Press: White, Christian Nationalism is not Christian

There is an objective standard which defines Christian faith, and even the broader term "Christianity" in general.  That seems to be something many people don't really grasp, especially those who don't hold specific religious beliefs.  But it is important to understand the objective standard which identifies individual Christians and defines Christianity in order to call out aberrations, pseudo-Christian imposters and even anti-Christian infiltrators.  Otherwise, a broad-brush indictment will do unnecessary damage and promote a measure of bigotry against people and groups that don't deserve it.  

Being a Christian isn't just a matter of saying so and then using that to make it into whatever you please.  It's a faith with a 2,000 year old historical context, multiple confessions of faith that are similar in content and in the beliefs that they express and a written record of revelation set in context by its founder.  It's a systematic faith with a consistent theology. It has a clear set of objective principles and beliefs that are documented in writing with accurate transmission that is historically verified, vetted by those who held its beliefs.  And when those works of antiquity are correctly interpreted, by early confessions of believers, there is no support for any sort of "Christian Nationalism," either what's been practiced in the past, such as the "divine right" of monarchs, nor of the current, American, "Anglo-Israelism" known as dominion theology. 

There is No Biblical Basis for White, Christian Nationalism

Most of the Evangelical and Charismatic/Pentecostal branches of American Christianity claim to believe that the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible are "without any mixture of error," and are "totally true and trustworthy."1  Add that to a belief that the text should be interpreted "literally" unless there is a specific context clue that points to something different, and you have a formula for gross misinterpretation and distortion of the text.  To understand how far white, Christian nationalism is away from the Christian gospel of Christ requires some understanding of this aspect of Christian hermeneutics, so bear with me and I'll make it as simple as I can. 

The same confession of faith from which I cited the quotes about the Bible's trustworthiness also declares that "The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ."  A more conservative group of Christians changed that to "All scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is himself the focus of divine revelation."  The change was to deflect critics who basically claimed that the omission of any record of Jesus speaking on certain issues was not a legitimate argument from the absence of evidence, such as the claim that since Jesus doesn't directly mention homosexuality, he didn't think it was sinful.  But it still makes the point that the interpretive filter for all of the Bible are the gospel accounts recording the words of Christ.  

Jesus himself confirms this fact when he said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish but to fulfill." 2  

If we're going to call this movement out, because it is a threat to democracy, and specifically, to this democracy and its constitution, then it must be called out and responded to in a way that demonstrates its inconsistency with the teachings of Christ and the Apostles, and how it is at odds with Biblical revelation.  White, Christian Nationalism--and I will continue to use the adjective "white" to describe it because it is racist in exactly that way--has no basis for support from the correctly interpreted Biblical text.  Jesus would have rejected it outright as the exact opposite of what he called and described as the Kingdom of God.  

White, Christian Nationalists distort the interpretation of the Biblical text, selectively choosing parts of it that support their position without filtering it through the revelation of Christ, and without considering the historical context of the passage they cite.  That's a common error across the spectrum of Christianity, and specifically conservative, Evangelical Christianity where many church members tend to consider theological education that doesn't emphasize their personal biases as liberal and intentionally misleading.  The Charismatic and Pentecostal branches of the church are extremely subjective in their interpretation of the Bible, depending heavily on emotion and feelings, and believing in miraculous "sign gifts" by which they claim interpretations and revelations that change or supersede the Biblical text. 

Christian Faith and Practice is Visible and Identifiable by Observation

If any think they are religious, and do not bridle their tongues but deceive their hearts, their religion is worthless.  Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.  James 1:26-27, NRSV

Who is wise and understanding among you?  Show by your good life that your works are done with gentleness born of wisdom.  But if you have bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not be boastful and false to the truth.  Such wisdom does not come down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, devilish.  For where there is envy and selfish ambition, there will also be disorder and wickedness of every kind.  But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without a trace of partiality or hypocrisy.  And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace for those who make peace.  James 3:13-18

Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.  Whoever does not love does not know God for God is love.  I John 4:7-9, NRSV

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.  Matthew 5:9, NRSV

As God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, meekness and patience.  Bear with one another and if anyone has a complaint against another, forgive each other; just as the Lord has forgiven you, so you must also forgive.  Above all, clothe yourselves with love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.  And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in the one body.  And be thankful.  Colossians 3:12-15 NRSV

This is a very small sample of the characteristics and actions which, by observation, are visible indicators of Christian faith. There are multiple descriptive terms, adjectives which describe the demeanor and actions produced by the spiritual transformation we call "conversion to Christ," or "salvation by grace through faith in Christ."  That's the focal point of what defines being "Christian" and the experience that makes one "Christian" and it is a state of being that is visible in the way a Christian lives out their faith.  It's defined by Jesus himself, and by his disciples, the early church Apostles.  

So the obvious question is whether any of these identifiable, descriptive characteristics are visible anywhere in white, Christian nationalism, dominion theology, or any of the various sects that make up the whole of Christian nationalist philosophy and ideology.  

I don't see any of them, anywhere in the whole movement.  And that's not a judgement, it's an observation. 

The Apostle James says, "So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead."3  

Only the language of white, Christian nationalism is similar to Christianity.  The ideology and its objectives are pseudo-Christian, but by definition, are not Christian. 

__________________________________________________________________

1  The Baptist Faith and Message, 1963 and 2000 versions

2  Matthew 5:17, NRSV

3 James 2:17, NRSV

A Responsible Senator Would Advocate Against Violence

The responsible, patriotic thing for United States Senators to do, instead of warning of "violence in the streets" resulting from indictments of former President 45, would be to point out that in this country, violence committed with the intention of overturning the rule of law is illegal, unpatriotic, seditious and makes those who advocate it the enemy of the people.  It is unfortunate that some states seem to have elected a few who have no sense of their responsibility as a Senator, and are more loyal to a former President than they are to the Constitution or to the democracy that it establishes and sustains.  

There was violence after the murder of George Floyd and the far right gleefully blamed it on the left, though there's absolutely no indication that anyone on the left, at least among those elected to office, ever did anything except condemn the violence and use their influence to stop it.  Those on the "left" who were elected to serve governments in areas directly affected by it took action to stop it.  And none of it was aimed at overthrowing the government and defying the constitution.  It was still wrong, and the politicians on the left said so.  

The threats that are being made now are being used as leverage, in defense of a corrupt politician avoiding criminal indictments for crimes for which there is substantiated evidence indicating he committed them.  Those who are making the threats and advocating the violence are subverting the rule of law, not supporting it. It's beyond irresponsible for an elected member of Congress to do anything except speak against it. 

I don't recall any threats of violence when Hillary Clinton was under investigation.  And the only conspiracy theories I heard about the possibility of thwarting the peaceful transfer of power after Trump was elected came from right wingers projecting all of that on the left, claiming that President Obama had some kind of secret plan to declare martial law, and keep Trump from getting the Presidency.  There were also right wing extremists claiming that Vice-President Biden had a secret plan to avoid certifying the electoral votes from several states to give the Presidency to Clinton instead.  But it never happened, because it was never planned.  

So what's happening among Republicans now is quite the contrast.  

It's become pretty clear, through all of the whole saga of Trump's failure to follow constitutional law, and attempts to overturn a legitimate election, that all of this was planned in advance.  It's also pretty clear that if the labels were different, and this was a Democrat who was doing this, the same Republicans now warning of potential violence would be up front and center demanding that the rule of law be followed and that the perpetrators of this gigantic fraud and sedition be prosecuted immediately to the full extent of the law.  Their silence is actually sending a loud and clear message about where their loyalty really lies, their selfish ambition and their lack of respect for the American people, representative democracy, and the whole foundation of values and principles on which this country was founded. 

I remember from the Vietnam War era, a bumper sticker that was a slap in the face to draft dodgers and those opposed to the war, which read, "America:  Love It or Leave It."  Any United States Senator, representative or elected official who is not willing to take a stand against political violence should not be in office and should resign immediately.  Otherwise, they are betraying their oath of office and the American people.  

Warning from a Republican State Attorney General: America is Two Votes Away From Federalized Elections

Wonderful!  Not a moment too soon!    

Thanks to Missouri's Republican Attorney General Eric Schmitt, Democrats now have two more reasons to motivate their base to turn out and cast ballots in the midterm elections, along with the gift of the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision.  Schmitt made an appearance on some extremist right wing program acting like a snowflake, whining about the possibility that two more Democratic senators might mean that Congress will federalize elections and pack the Supreme Court.  

I'm checking my calendar now, to find additional time to help the DNC make calls to get voters to the polls in November in those states where we can pick up a senate seat.  The more, the better.  Two would be great, but four or five would be a lot better and increase the chances of getting even more reforms that have been necessary for a long time.  Thank you, Eric, for pointing this out.  I hereby pronounce you as an official, genuine, Trumpie, Republican snowflake!  

Federal elections should have been placed under control of the federal government when the Constitution was ratified.  The hodge-podge of ridiculous, pernicious, convoluted election systems in the states is an embarrassment to American democracy and makes us look like a third world country.  It's long, long past the time when a real federal election commission with authority to draw congressional district lines and run congressional elections was created by Congress, leaving state legislatures and elected officials powerless to affect the outcome of federal elections, especially the Presidential election.  

Pack the court?  When can we get started on that?  I'm all for it and I think the mood has shifted enough since this current court has demonstrated a lack of integrity and a strong, partisan spirit, to make this a genuine vote-getter for Democrats.

It's too bad the possibility really doesn't exist to get to two-thirds of the senate, so we could add abolishing the electoral college to the list, and impeaching six Supreme Court justices instead of having to pack the court, but I'll settle for giving Biden five more vacancies to fill.  Is it possible to confirm all five of them at one time, instead of having to go through all that hearing nonsense and listen to all the Republican whine?   

Until congressional and presidential elections are under control of the federal government, states will be able to manipulate everything from how ballots are cast to how they are counted.  I understand the history behind the decisions that were made at the time, but we are way past that time now, and every vote of every American needs to count equally.  I also understand why elections free and unhindered by government apparatus, and controlled by the federal government are feared by Republicans who have had major difficulty winning them at that level over the past decade.  

Packing the court has been something I've favored since the Clinton administration.  The current court, which has been far more involved in partisan politics than any other, needs a lesson in its original constitutional purpose.  

So, Eric, today I will make a contribution to the DNC's midterm election campaign fund in honor of you, and I will dedicate an extra four hours of making phone calls to Wisconsin voters on behalf of Mandela Barnes as a way of thanking you for this reminder.  

Doomed to Repeat the Mistakes of the Past, Republican Rhetoric Sounds Like it's 1930 Again

Bits and pieces of quotes from Republicans who are upset over the Inflation Reduction Act, and over the President's announcement that some refunds are forthcoming on student loans floating around the media today remind me of the same mindset and perspective they exhibited when Hoover couldn't wrap his mind around how to help people after the stock market crash of 1929.  The only thing that's missing from their rhetoric today that was there during the Depression is some misplaced sympathy and some sad faces for those hardest hit, though the same stone-walled unwillingness to actually do something to help, and the same protectionism for the riches of the super wealthy, made most of that look hypocritical. 

But there's no sympathy for those who endure economic hardship because some aspect of the economy, like exorbitant and unreasonable tuition costs for college, or ridiculously high medical and health care costs, get way out of proportion to the level of competition in the marketplace that is theoretically supposed to keep things balanced.  That's gone, and the racism that was there during the Depression is now more vicious and rabid than it was back then.  

During the Depression, Republican politicians, led by President Hoover, whose mantra has always been "small government is good government," were simply incapable of getting out of the economic box they were in, which was basically an early model of trickle down, without much trickle.  They argued vehemently that it was not the government's job, or responsibility, to interfere with the laws of economics, except, of course, to protect the profits of big business with tariffs.  But the Depression was too big for the prevailing economic practices to handle, and the unemployment it produced left millions homeless and starving.  Political pressure forced the Republicans to provide some kind of relief, though it was as limited as they could make it and still call it relief.  

And, of course, in their way of thinking, business could not be obligated, or forced, or taxed, to help because, after all, they had their own economic worries.  So, the prevailing reasoning was that the economy would eventually work things out, and the government should provide what little relief it could, but nothing that would interfere with the natural process of economic law.  

But, America is a democracy, a government of, by and for the people, and that last preposition can't be ignored.  The people can make their government assume any role they think it needs to take, including levelling the economic playing field when things get way out of proportion, and using its resources to benefit citizens while correcting problems that are overwhelming, create major hardships for its citizens and might not resolve on their own.  It is not bound by nebulous, artificial "economic laws."  And if it gets in those kinds of ruts because of long-term dominance by one way of thinking, the people can make whatever changes they need to make.  

It doesn't matter what it is, whether it is crushing student loan debt or crushing prescription drug costs due not to scarcity or supply, but to the greed of corporations who profiteer off of people's pain and suffering, Republicans don't want to do anything for anyone who isn't in their billionaires' club.  They've used veterans for their purposes for a long time, trying to claim that Democrats would rather send billions in foreign aid than spend it on veterans.  But it is Republicans who beat down every attempt to improve the Veteran's Administration, especially access to its health care.  Who led the opposition to the burn pit bill which was aimed at helping veterans?  In fact, who has voted down, ever single time it comes up, any legislation aimed at improving the financial condition of American veterans?  

Different Times, Similar Circumstances

We aren't in a depression, and contrary to the prognostications of the extreme right, we are not in a recession, either.  But there are some parts of the economy that have been skewed and distorted beyond reasonable ability of normal economic circumstances to handle for many people.  One of those things is the cost of college and the need for students to take out large loans to pay for this necessity.  The Republicans have been reluctant--er, ah, completely oppositional to making community college tuition free, mainly because anything that would cause consideration of taxing the corporate wealthy at similar rates to the working class is out.  They've been both hypocritical and ridiculous in their criticism of the President's actions this week.  

Clearly, the cost of a college education over four years has become disproportionately huge compared the resources available to finance it, which means that only those rich enough to afford it can go, or those who are willing to spread out debt load over decades.  In fact, most colleges and universities would cease to exist if student loans were not available because their endowments and available grant and scholarship money is no longer enough to cover expenses for most students, including those who play football.  Public universities are already partially underwritten by tax dollars.  

Health care and the profiteering that is one of the core values of the prescription drug industry has gone beyond the ability of those on fixed incomes to afford it without something being done.  You'd think this would be something Republicans would understand and be willing to work at fixing, since their party members get old, too and not all of them are wealthy enough to have much of a pension.  But the GOP has gone so long without a coherent policy platform of any kind, except cutting the taxes of the wealthy and letting them get away with bribery and buying government policy, that they don't recognize something that is genuinely populist in nature.  

"The Democrats are Just Playing Politics and Using This to Get Votes"

Of course we are.  And I sincerely hope that it gets us a lot of votes.  I remember reading What's the Matter With Kansas? by journalist historian Thomas Frank back when it came out around 2004.  That's exactly what the GOP did, aimed at getting people to vote against their own interests.  The governor of Kansas at the time was Katherine Sebelius, who, in a state where Republican party voter registration outnumbered Democrats by almost two to one, defied the prevailing political patterns and managed to win two terms, the second one overwhelmingly, by running on the belief that government should serve the people who empower it.  

If cutting to the chase, promising to use influence as an elected official to get government to work for its citizens, relieving suffering and oppressive exploitation, helps candidates win elections, why take a different approach?  The Republicans haven't offered a coherent plan to do anything except be obstructionists and help the white, wealthy corporate elite get rich enough to actually buy the government since Bush was elected in 2000.  If someone votes for a candidate because they promised to help them avoid having to choose between medicine and food, or rent, and helps a college graduate in a professional occupation pay off a staggering debt that is controlling their life, what's wrong with that?   

It's Been a Great Month for President Joe Biden

The Biden Presidency has never been "off the rails," at least, not from my perspective.  It has functioned as the Presidency should function, reacting, responding, negotiating with legislators, issuing executive orders and managing the business of the executive branch with competence.  It has responded to crisis, including the war in Ukraine, the temporary spike in inflation and the Afghanistan exit, exactly as it should have.  I continue to insist, in the face of pundits and prognosticators, that the Afghanistan withdrawal was one of the great logistical achievements of the U.S. military, under the orders of the Commander in Chief.  And it has achieved legislative accomplishments many pundits thought were impossible to achieve.  

But the criminal activity of the former, failed President dominates the news cycle.  

As negative as the news is about the failed former President, and as bad as his administration failed, fascination and attention now focused on his criminal behavior, and the guessing game as to whether he will ever be called to account for it eclipses the remarkable success of what has been one of the most effective Presidential administrations since the end of the Second World War.  That's a travesty which is blocking the full view to this Presidency and one of the more pervasive factors influencing and interfering with his job approval ratings.  

Oh, yeah, there was one report that made its way through the fog of Trumpian criminality to be reported about the Biden administration.  His job approval rating eked back up to 41%.  Of course, that's one of the lower figures in a two week period that had even the Rasmussen poll showing one survey as high as 45%.  But of course, if most of what we're seeing and hearing is Trump did this, Trump thinks that, Trump complained about this, it might be a little bit difficult to know what the real, current, legitimately elected President of the United States is doing.  I'm at the point now where I think that a lot of the Presidential job approval data is being skewed by the pollster's "factoring" and by data that is months old.  

We Could See This Coming, That's Why We Elected Joe Biden

The experiment involving electing a "populist" who came from "outside the beltway," not of the Washington political tribe, failed miserably.  Instead of the image that Trump projected, or attempted to project to those gullible enough to believe it was accurate, we got a fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants incompetent egomaniac unable to function in government because it didn't work the way he wanted it to work, and much of it was beyond his ability to control.  By any historical standard honestly applied, Trump was the worst President in American history, in every way that he could be, including his ignorance of and disdain for the Constitution.  

Joe Biden, in stark contrast, is a seasoned, career politician.  That's not always a bad thing.  Knowing how government works, especially in a democracy with a huge marketplace of ideas, is a necessity for the presidency and I think it is accurate to say that the American people saw this and made their choice.  It's certainly been a good thing up to this point.  And with this fomenting extremism, the anti-patriotic, anti-democratic, anti-everything conspiracy theorists pushing it to its limits and testing principles that haven't been stretched like this since the Civil War, Joe Biden's experience and knowledge of government is especially valuable. I see the phrase, "Our democracy is teetering in the balance" appearing in the media with frequency and I think we have the best man in the White House to help push it back toward democracy. 

Things are Going Well

The price of gasoline is always a huge deal, though the President really has little control over it or power to really make a difference.  The right keeps whining and pushing its same narratives over and over again, but this Presidential administration has essentially opened the taps.  It's the companies themselves who have created the price increase, some of it because of transportation and employment issues, partly because they are never afraid to capitalize on the slightest little breeze in order to profiteer.  The pipeline and environmental protection is always a bugaboo for them, though the facts don't support their complaining.  

But it's been steadily dropping and getting close to exactly where it was when it started going up, which is good news for everyone, except Republicans who can't attract voters with good news.  Maybe if they had a legislative agenda other than being the party of "NO!", then they wouldn't be dependent on the price of gasoline to help get some voters. 

But there's no question about the legislative success of this administration.  No, it wasn't all of what the President wanted.  But that doesn't change the significance of what he has accomplished with the Inflation Reduction Act.  This bill was significant in two big ways.  One, no Republicans supported it, which identifies it completely with the Democrats and the Biden Administration.  Without having to say anything at all, the President has sent the very clear message that Democrats aren't just talking and clicking their tongues about inflation, they are doing something about.  And two, it will impact segments of the population that will drive turnout in the direction of the Democrats in November.

Today, the President cancelled student loan debt, up to $10,000 in some cases, recognizing that, as a nation, we have some obligation to provide at least some help to those whose lives and education will make this country a better place to live.  Perhaps, after the mid-terms, Democrats can consider proposals to provide up to two years of community college for anyone who wants to go.  Education is not the answer to all of the problems of the human race, but critical thinking skills are essential to the preservation of democracy.  It's the best way I can think of to put an end to Q-Anon and the ridiculous fantasy world of election deniers.  

I'd probably be completely satisfied, and very optimistic, if the justice department decided to pounce, hand down some indictments and let the chips fall where they may with regard to the failed former President.  I expect that this administration is well prepared for the possibilities of any kind of violence that might be stirred up as a result of his arrest and indictment. Frankly, most of those people are brainwashed followers and cowards, though some of them are dangerous thugs.  Deal with it, let him have a quick, speedy trial and put him out of sight, out of mind.  

I like government that works this way, even if no Republicans want to cast ballots to support it out of some sense of misplaced loyalty.  Another two years of this and they really will be irrelevant, and the President will have accomplished as much as he originally set out to do.  Let it be his choice to run again, he has earned it.  

 

Christianity is Not a Tool for Achieving Political Ends

But strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.  Matthew 6:33, NRSV

And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.  Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you.  And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age."  Matthew 28:18-20, NRSV

The Christian church experienced some of its greatest periods of persecution between the reigns of the Roman emperors Nero and Constantine.  Steadfast in their obedience to the instructions of both Paul and Peter, they did not rebel or turn violently against their persecutors, choosing death over denying their faith in Christ.  The emperors, who, from the time of Nero, demanded to be worshipped as if they were a god, saw the Christian refusal to do so as an act of disloyalty against the empire, and intended to wipe the Christian church out completely by murdering all of its adherents.  

But the persecution, which was as severe and cruel as anything the Roman Empire ever committed, had exactly the opposite effect.  Rather than wiping out the church and depleting its membership, the steadfastness and obedience of Christians to the instruction of the apostles, even in the face of martyrdom, had the effect of convincing their pagan neighbors of the veracity of their beliefs and of the existence of God as revealed by Christian practice.  And so, when Constantine came on the scene, after over 250 years of persecution of the church, Christianity had become the predominant religion in the empire, with literally thousands of churches scattered in virtually every province, including a large and very strong church in Rome itself.  

A Paradigm Shift

Constantine's conversion to Christianity is an enigma.  Eusebius, the Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, records the vision Constantine claimed to have as he was struggling militarily to gain control of the Roman armies and the empire.  Clearly, he had been exposed to Christianity, and was influenced by the resilience of Christian faith against severe persecution.  Seeing this in terms of being some kind of power which he could appropriate to his military advantage, he claims to have had a mid-day vision, as he was reaching out to a God he didn't know, of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, bearing the inscription "By this symbol you will conquer."  

That's where the paradigm shift occurred.  Constantine's conversion brought about the sudden end to the persecution of Christians.  It also brought about the end of one of the greatest periods of evangelism in the history of Christianity.  Almost as quickly as the persecution ended, the infiltration of pagan influences began as the Christian church, heavily influenced by Constantine's power, entered into an alliance with the political state, and in short order, the gospel of Jesus Christ was overwhelmed by worldly power and pagan influence.  

Not only did the political authority surrounding Constantine overwhelm the church, but he poured personal wealth, and resources acquired by the empire, into the churches.  The combination of this new found wealth, and the power of the Emperor himself completely changed the character of the church.  Its theology and doctrine were changed to be compatible with things Constantine believed and practiced, large, ornate church structures were constructed, replacing the house churches where most Christians once worshipped, and large numbers of pagans were brought into church membership and leadership of the church who had never experienced genuine spiritual transformation and conversion, and the church became a tool for achieving the emperor's political and military ends.  

The sign that Constantine claimed to have seen in the heavens could not have come from the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Conquest by the sign of the cross is diametrically opposed to Christian theology.  Being a peacemaker is one of the primary virtues of the Christian faith. There are those who believe that his vision was a hallucination, the product of the emotional and physical state he was in at the time.  Or, as others speculate, a deception designed to gain the loyalty of the church's leaders and the power he perceived them to have in order to solidify his own emperorship.  

What Jesus and the Apostles preached and taught was a faith dependent on spiritual transformation and aimed at redeeming the virtues and value of human life.  What Constantine saw was an institution that could be used to achieve his own political ends.  He took control of it and turned it into what he wanted it to be.  And it didn't take very long for it to become something very different than what Jesus Christ planned, or imagined it could be.  For over a thousand years, Christians who practiced their faith separate from the dictates of the Roman emperor, Byzantium and what became an institutional, state church had to do so underground, to avoid continued persecution by the state and its allies in the church which it controlled.

American Religious Liberty was a "Second Chance"

There are a lot of parallels in those historical events to what has happened to the Christian church multiple times as it has struggled to free itself from political influence and use of its influence to achieve political goals.  Attempts to reform itself and return to what Christ intended for it to be rarely met with much success. Until the Protestant Reformation, there were very few opportunities or places for the church to escape the political control under which it had endured since Constantine.  The Reformation gave some Christians a taste of religious liberty, but provided few actual opportunities to experience it.  

"A free church in a free state" was the result of American constitutional religious liberty.  There was no state church, and churches were not dependent on the state for financial support or for filling their pews with people required to be there by law.  As a result, the church entered into another period of virtually unprecedented evangelistic activity.  But, as Christianity became the overwhelmingly predominant religious expression in the United States, it also became the recipient of favors, exceptions to the establishment clause and in some places, a dominant force that could not resist becoming engaged in politics.  And when Christians push their churches to side with partisan politics, it subverts its mission and purpose and waters down the content of the gospel to the point where principles of faith become indistinguishable from political agendas, or they get pushed aside altogether. 

The Evangelical branch of the Christian church in America has been undergoing a decline in participation, attendance and membership that is unprecedented in its history.  It's difficult not to notice that this decline, which is getting worse every year, coincides with the increased involvement of many of the members and leaders of churches and denominations in right wing politics.  And it's easy to see why.  The Christian gospel is politicized in sermons, books, conferences and rallies, distorted beyond recognition.  People are leaving because of this.  

Christianity is a Faith Experience, Not Something Which Can Be Mandated or Enforced by Law

Christian faith loses its essence and meaning if it becomes nothing more than obedience to a set of commands out of fear of punishment. It requires spiritual conviction in order to be brought to confessing Jesus as the Christ.  And it also requires spiritual conviction to exhibit the virtues of Christian faith as a lifestyle.  Those things can't be enforced either by threats of violence, military power or coercion.  They must be willingly accepted and genuinely practiced.  

There is no "faith" in a religion dependent on political power to enforce its tenets.  Jesus made it very clear that he was the promised Messiah, fulfilling Old Testament prophecy and law, and that meant that he was not going to somehow miraculously restore the military might of ancient Israel to overthrow Roman rule and set up another earthly, theocratic kingdom.  The "kingdom" he was establishing was the Christian church, a faith which transcended worldly, temporal politics and all of the prejudices and hatreds that were part of that way of life, and which would be based on God's love for his human creation and his plan for its redemption.  

What we are seeing, on the political right in America, is the development of another gospel, one which perverts the Christian gospel and by its actions and intentions, flatly denies everything that Jesus said and did.  The Christian gospel rests on virtues that are brought about by the presence of God's spirit, motivated by gratitude for the grace which brings about spiritual transformation.  Blessed are the poor in spirit, those who mourn, the meek, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, the merciful, the pure in heart, the peacemakers, those who are persecuted for righteousness sake and because they have chosen to follow Christ," said Jesus, at the beginning of a passage known as "The Sermon on the Mount."  Those are virtues of Christian faith.  And--this isn't judgment, it's observation--I see none of that in the far right politics of Trumpism and Christian Nationalism.  

"God is love," said the Apostle John in his epistle to the church, "and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them."

"There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear, for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love.  Those who say, 'I love God,' and hate their brothers or sisters are liars, for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen cannot love God whom they have not seen.  The commandment we have from him is this:  those who love God must love their brothers and sisters also."  (Selected passages from I John 4, NRSV)

White, Christian nationalism, at the intersection with Trumpism, is anti-Christian, denying the purpose that Jesus had for his church, denying the gospel, and promoting hate.  

"I write to you not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it and you know that no lie comes from the truth.  Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ?  This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son."  I John 2:21-22 NRSV 

Well I think that says enough.  Turning Christianity into a political faction to achieve the ends of right wing politics is a denial of Christ and a subversion of the Christian faith that he established.  

There's a Way for Democrats to Call Out and Rally Against White Christian Nationalism

Dean Obeidallah, MSNBC: Why Republican's "Christian Nationalism" is so Strong 

Christian nationalism "poses a very real threat to our freedoms and our democracy," says MSNBC Opinion Columnist Dean Obeidallah.  "Yet Democrats have still not found a way to call out and rally against this xenophobic radical, religious movement even though the answer is staring them in the face:  This is yet another example of the GOP's dangerous embrace of extremism." 

I believe there is a way for Democrats to call it out, rally against it and then put themselves in a position to defeat it.  

I've written about this threat before, partly in response to Marjorie Taylor Greene's suggestion that the Republican party become the party of Christian Nationalism, though she leaves out the racial reference even though that's exactly what she  means. White Christian Nationalism is pseudo-Christian in that it uses some of the symbolism and language of Christianity to define itself, and to convince white Christians in particular that they have been "chosen", in the same way that the Jewish race was chosen in the Old Testament, to reclaim worldly domains for God that have been taken over by Satan.  While it looks and sounds "Christian," it exhibits none of the virtues or characteristics that Jesus and the Apostles taught as the evidence of the presence of God and his indwelling Spirit in the lives of those who have experienced the spiritual transformation of the conversion experience.  It is anti-Christian because it is a counterfeit philosophy which subverts and distorts the gospel of Jesus Christ, turning faith into a tool for achieving political ends.  

The white, Christian nationalist movement is antithetical to the gospel of Jesus Christ.  You can find some of what I've written here:  A Pseudo-Christian Threat to Both Church and State.  

Not All Christians are Republicans

One of the reasons Democrats have difficulty calling this movement out, and finding a way to defeat it is that the approach that is taken excludes much of the direct evidence which undermines the basic premises and assertions made by Christian nationalists, and some of the most effective voices capable of arguing against it.  The main argument against it is that it isn't Christian.  That's the approach that Democrats need to take.  

"I'm not a Christian," said Medhi Hassan in a conversation with Ayman Mohyeldin during their program transition on MSNBC, "but I'm a fan of Jesus and I'm pretty sure that Jesus would want to have nothing to do with nationalism or AR-15's for that matter."  

He's absolutely correct.  I don't disagree with anything he said.  But, forgive the irony here, he's preaching to the choir.  If Democrats want to be successful in their efforts to create awareness of the genuine dangers of this movement and motivate voters to cast ballots against politicians who support it, they need to embrace the Christians within their ranks who have the theological expertise, and the credibility, to lay out the evidence against it from their own faith perspective.  

Both Hassan and Mohyeldin are Muslims, which doesn't prevent them from having an excellent understanding of how the actions and philosophy of Christian nationalists are at odds with the gospel of Jesus.  But the point that Taylor-Greene makes in her attempt to convince people that the Republican party should help America become a theocracy under Christian nationalist rule is that they will be criticized by non-Christians and "outsiders" who will accuse them of being terrorists.  But if the critics are Christians themselves, using their knowledge of the very scriptures that Christian nationalists claim to believe are without error and are their sole authority, Taylor-Greene's claim is, in effect, "called out." 

That is one of the primary reasons for the existence of The Signal Press.  Christianity's foundation is the gospel of Jesus Christ, and his recorded revelation of himself to humanity, found in the New Testament, is the interpretive filter for all of the rest of the Bible.  He is the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophets and law (Matthew 5:17).  There are several confessions of faith, written by American Evangelicals, which emphasize this fact.  

"The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ," says the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message.  "All scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is himself the focus of divine revelation," was included in the 2000 version of the same confession of faith.  Neither "Christian Nationalism," nor the white supremacy that is included in its vision for America, can be supported by the Christian scriptures when they are correctly interpreted in the spiritual and historical context in which they were written, including the words and life example of Jesus as the criterion and focus of the interpretation. So there is plenty of common interest linking Christians who want to preserve the integrity and veracity of the Christian faith from the infiltration of a non-Christian cult, and Democrats who want to preserve the American democracy and the constitution, including its guarantee of religious liberty and free speech.  

By embracing Christians who believe that their political expression is best represented by the Democratic party, who understand and hold strong convictions about the constitutional separation of church and state protecting their religious freedom which enables the unhindered practice of their faith, the party has both the means and the evidence to call out white, Christian nationalists as pseudo-Christian and anti-Christian, and help the party save American democracy from destruction by their fascist, racist ambitions.  It gives Democrats the credibility to call out this aberration that is dangerous to democracy and religious liberty, as well as to the church itself, because it is an invasive heresy that is hijacking the mission and purpose of the church and using Christianity as a means to achieve political ends.

"This is How You Know..." 

Christianity is not a nebulous, abstract ideology.  It has a very clear identity, and it can be distinguished in those who sincerely practice it by the virtues and values it produces, and, as Jesus taught and illustrated by personal example, in the way those who claim to be Christians treat other people.  

The primary confession of the Christian faith was stated by Peter, after Jesus asked him, "Who do you say that I am?"  Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God."  

The Apostle John affirms this confession as a belief prerequisite to the spiritual transformation of God.  In his first epistle to the church, he writes, "By this you know the Spirit of God:  Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.  And this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world" (I John 4:2-3).  

There is a very real sense in which attempting to establish a theocratic nation with Christianity assuming the same role that Judaism did under the old covenant in the Old Testament is a denial of the confession that Jesus is the Christ.  In the Old Testament, it was the covenant relationship itself through which people were spiritually transformed, or were brought into the Kingdom of God.  Christian nationalists are replacing the spiritual kingdom of God, based on Jesus as Lord and Savior, with a claim that they are being called to establish a political kingdom of God.  

The virtues and practices of the Christian faith must be lived out, they cannot be enforced by law.  People can be made to comply in obedience to a law requiring obedience to a specific principle, but doing so does not produce joy, peace, mercy, or any other "fruit" which Jesus and the apostles taught was the resulting evidence of being Christian.  And there isn't anything anywhere, in any of the New Testament writings of the Apostles, church leaders and in the record of the teaching of Christ himself, that offers a covenant relationship with a nation or country to make it "Christian" by establishing some kind of theocratic government.  

Those who are best equipped to call out the errors of Christian nationalists are Christians.  And there are plenty of sincere Christians, who are Evangelical in their expression of the faith, within the ranks of the Democratic party, who can lay this argument out.  The motivation for doing this is to preserve the religious freedom we have under the constitution which allows for the free exercise of our faith, and to prevent the further infiltration of our churches and denominations with the ideology and philosophy of a pseudo-Christian, anti-Christian cult that subverts the gospel and destroys the church.