Jonathan Leeman, Editorial Director at 9Marks, published an article at that website on October 31st. Titled '“Christian Nationalism” Misrepresents Jesus, So We Should Reject It,' and his piece was subsequently sent to me by JP Chavez, my neighbor two houses down.
What do I find in reading it? Only that Leeman argues for dropping the label ‘Christian Nationalism’ on the grounds that many people can’t tell the difference between two distinct ways of meaning the term. On the one hand, there are those like him who hold that Christianity should influence our nation and its laws; on the other hand, others suppose our nation and government should actually identify as Christian.
Yet Leeman takes the second possibility to mean that those who agree with it are wishing the government of the United States would establish a state church, or that they mistakenly suppose it's just that easy to convert a whole country to personal faith in Christ. Yet I know I at least am not arguing for the state to establish a church. And that being the case, Leeman would likely put me in the influencers category. But I also know that I am under no illusions that a Christian nation, so-called, either requires or else claims that all the citizens or residents of that nation are themselves Christians.
For his part, Leeman seems deeply troubled by at least some particular kinds of slippery slopes, at least when he spots them in certain quarters. Yet I wonder if this concern must apply equally to all sides in these kinds of debates, or else not at all. Avoidance of slippery slopes can become its own slippery slope, after all.
Wondering aside, the ideal is not to resign ourselves to passive influence. We ought to want that all our countrymen would really and truly become Christians, and that our nation might be one which God might in His infinite goodness and grace both bless and prosper. And as it seems to me, every square inch of progress in that direction is desirable. Otherwise, what would we suppose the jackpot scenario is in which Christian influence might come to full fruition? How identity might not be the most desirable outcome of Christian influence is admittedly lost on me.
Contrary to what Leeman seems to think, I have never understood those who say America formerly was a Christian nation to mean that all Americans were ever Christians at any point in our history. But we do not need to say that every last man, woman, and child in America is a Christian in order to say that America is a Christian nation, any more than we would say that every citizen of China must be a communist in order to call that country a communist nation, or that every citizen of Saudi Arabia must be a Muslim to call that country a Muslim nation. That is, we all understand in these other cases what is being said. So why doesn't Leeman understand what proponents of so-called Christian nationalism for America are saying?
Conversely, not every citizen of the United States of America need be a secular humanist, pluralist, or Progressive for us to say these terms have typified the kind of country the U.S. has been for at least several decades. Yet I suppose by Leeman's reasoning, we all must be, if that is what is said of America right now. Or, what? Is America a kind of Schrodinger's cat? Theologically, philosophically, politically, socially - do the rules change depending on whether we are calling for a maintenance of the current status quo, or championing a return to Christian morality?
I have so many questions. Yet in the meantime, between now and if, or when, Mr. Leeman answers them, I must reject his argument. In claiming that Christian nationalism misrepresents Jesus, I dare say Mr. Leeman misrepresents Christian nationalism.
