Do we want a pagan nation? And - why does social media lead to clever people saying silly things?

"Christians who are against Christian nationalism - seems (sic) to want to convert a nation but not disciple it, want it to be Christian but live under pagan laws! If you are Christian, but against a Christian national identity, I think you are suffering from cognitive dissonance."

On X (Twitter), one British Christian Nationalist with 50,000 followers (re-tweeted by another, one promoted repeatedly by Christian Concern with 8,000 followers), posts the above.

I realise that X is not the place to look for nuanced presentations of ideas, but, the above sort of reasoning is what we see from many Christian Nationalists in their longer-form pieces too. It is all so beautifully simple, and you wonder how could anyone oppose it? Jesus tells everyone to obey him, whoever and wherever they are, and Christian Nationalists are just applying this to kings and presidents, applying it at the national level. Surely you don't want people to disobey Jesus, do you?

In 2025, a lot of people with thoughts about ideas that seem reasonable to them don't then proceed to buy a few books to find out how historically Christians have thought about those ideas. They go straight to X and promote their ideas to their followers, and start accumulating likes and re-tweets. But let's not make this too much of a grumble-fest about social media.... let's answer the point being made instead. I'm a "Christian who is against Christian Nationalism". Does that mean that I am one who "seems to want to convert a nation but not disciple it, want it to be Christian but live under pagan laws" ? Well, no; and also, no.

Seems? Or actually are? 

First thing: what's the word "seems" doing there? It's a typical "muddy the waters" word, obscuring the difference between something that the poster wanted to say, and what he actually could justifiably say. i.e. One of those words used when the person using it intuitively feels or suspects that what they're saying isn't true, or that there's something that doesn't quite hold in their argument, but they haven't yet done the thinking to sort it out and present the argument properly. What does it mean to merely "seem to" want to convert a nation but not disciple, and to actually want that? If they don't actually want it, then why, in your eyes, do they "seem to"? Are you conceding already that what "seems" to be so to you is in fact merely a naive reading off from immediate appearance, something that disappears once you start to make basic distinctions and think carefully? (In which case, there would be no case to answer, and no pointing tweeting it).

And of course, that is the case here. "Convert a nation but not disciple it". The key point is that conversion is the entrance-door into discipleship. You cannot disciple those who are not converted. Converted first: then discipled. That's basic to Bible Christianity: you must be born again (John 3), and the new birth is an event that happens to people as individuals. Until you can actually see the kingdom of heaven, you cannot enter it, much less be discipled in its ways. This must happen to people personally, one-by-one. Under the New Covenant, a household can be divided, two against three, and three against two, because some are converted and some aren't. How much more a clan, village, town, city or nation? Some are "born from above", and some aren't: and that's not something dispensable, something you can bracket out as optional for the purposes of discipling them.

So, any talk of Christian discipleship for people who aren't Christians is wrong-headed: it is a mistake. In historical Biblical theology (not just from the Reformation), three uses of God's law were recognised. (These are not three in a temporal or logical sequence: they have inter-relations, but the ordering is not intended to imply sequence). The first is, as a mirror showing us God's perfect holiness, which has the consequence of showing us our sin so that we might seek salvation. The second is to curb and restrain evil - in individuals and in societies. The third is to teach those who are regenerate and do know God how to walk with him in his covenant. Notice that the third is the one that particularly applies to disciples, and not to non-disciples. The first two apply universally. This is how Christians generally have historically understood God's law to apply in the context of nations: that the first two are operative amongst them, and we preach God's requirements to non-believers with them in view. The law does not exist for the purpose of discipleship of non-believers. It has a much more limited purpose, and that is linked to the fact that the whole of God's law will not be applied exhaustively within national law (which is to say, there are many sins which will not be crimes: contempt in the heart towards one's neighbour is not an offence for the civil authorities to prosecute). Restraint of societal evil is not discipleship, and restraining evil, whilst a God-honouring and legitimate activity, is not the subject of the Great Commission.

Only two options for how to apply Christianity to nations? 

The X poster above then presents us with a false dichotomy: if you don't think that the purpose of civil authority is to disciple people in the ways of Christianity, then this must mean that you wish to live under "pagan laws". These, apparently, are the only two options. You can be a Christian Nationalist, or you can wish society to be ordered by paganism. This sort of absolutist, completely-polarising statement, though, reveals nothing about the actual range of options and possibilities that do exist. It merely reveals that the person making it is completely ignorant of the attempts of Christians in the last 2000 years to wrestle with these questions - or at least, he presents himself as one when tweeting. Is it too much to point out that twisting the Great Commission into something that it isn't, and promoting paganism, aren't the only two available options for Christians?

"If you are Christian, but against a Christian national identity, I think you are suffering from cognitive dissonance." Here's the rub. A nation whose general character is not Christian, cannot have a "Christian national identity", in any meaningful sense that could be recognised from the New Testament. Christian identity begins with recognising that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the Son of God, repenting of our sins and trusting in him for our salvation. It is an identity wrought in us by the Holy Spirit. Under the Old Covenant there was a nation of people who did not, in general, have God's laws written on their hearts - and despite having a perfect law written on tablets of stone, they continually descended into the worst of idolatry. God, through many centuries, patiently taught us that it doesn't matter what is written externally: you need the Holy Spirit to make it a living reality. That reality is now present in Jesus Christ, and in the gatherings of those who know him and manifest that that knowledge is not a legal fiction, but a living, present and glorious reality. The label "Christian" should not be attached to a nation whose national character is profoundly non-Christian. The United Kingdom is not a nation of people who have seen true God, and delight to worship him, trusting in his risen Son. It is not a "Christian nation", and changing all of its laws would not make it one. Trying to re-create something akin to Israel living under the law, via making external changes, in order to have a "Christian nation" shows a profound confusion and lack of understanding of Scripture.

The previous paragraph is basic to understanding the Biblical covenants and their intended fulfilment in the New Testament church, which is a gathered body of people who have experienced the realities that the gospel describes, as demonstrated by their actual lives. There is no concept of a "Christian Nation" of people who are largely unregenerate, but who have been discipled by a great set of laws in order to largely conform to the outward requirements of Christian morality. As we say today "that is not a thing". It does not exist. There is no such concept. The apostles did not teach it, and what they did teach about understanding what had happened in Jesus Christ directly contradicts it. That's not because they were secret pagans; it's because they had grasped the fundamentals of the Christian faith and its relationship to history.

We can do better than this... 

As I say, the above was re-tweeted by someone else who is promoted by Christian Concern, a former Bible college lecturer in the UK - i.e. someone who should know better. He added his own comment: "If Christians are not actively trying to Christianise their nation, what on earth are they doing? Did Jesus not call you to disciple the nations, teaching them to obey Christ?"

It ought to be uncontroversial with us that the proper manner for implementing the Great Commission is sufficiently described for us in the Holy Scriptures, where they record what the apostles who first received the Commission actually went out and did. They preached the gospel, called for response to it, gathered the converts into churches, taught them how to follow Jesus in every part of life, and to look with expectancy for his return. Concerning relating to the civil authorities, they told them that their general posture was to be one of honour and obedience (whilst allowing that there may be occasions when they must be disobeyed in order to maintain obedience to God). Concerning campaigning for creating entities "Christian nations" through reform of national laws, they have nothing to say - because, as per the above, their actual understanding radically contradicted such a mistaken idea. Jesus Christ's teachings to his disciples do not, in fact, contain a section in which he lists what laws a nation should have on its statute books - and the Great Commission is not a mandate which required the apostles or the church to campaign for specific laws as part of the New Covenant, i.e. as part of Christianity.

We are asked, what on earth are we doing? Quite often I have the feeling that I don't know what quite a few people on Twitter are actually doing (as opposed to just talking around in circles to themselves about), but for myself, I'm seeking to preach Jesus Christ, and perform good works which testify to the love which God has made known in him, so that his people might be added to and built up. That, after all, is what the apostles did and told Christian servants to do, as recorded in the Scriptures (with the pastoral epistles giving especial guidance to those in formal ministry). A Bible college lecturer ought to be able to avoid trivial semantic fallacies such as finding "disciple" and "nations" in the same sentence, and then building a non-biblical doctrine that bears no resemblance to the rest of the New Testament out of that. But in 2025, this cannot be taken for granted at all. The "hot takes" put out by people with PhD-level education are as routinely full of error here as anyone else's, sadly. Brothers and sisters in Christ, let us get out of our social media bubbles of people who agree with us on everything, and who stir us up more and more to say more and more absurd and extreme things in order to maintain the previous buzz or keep gaining our followers or whatever. Let us try to love God with our minds sufficiently to say things that edify and help people to do what the Bible actually told us to do, in ways that a reasonable person reading the Bible can recognise as implementing the activities of the apostles and early church in contemporary society. Let us tremble and run ten miles before we take Jesus' Great Commission to his church, and pervert it into something else that his apostles would not have recognised as the mission they were told to implement, and did implement, and which the Holy Spirit carefully recorded for us in Scripture.

(Follow the "Christian Nationalism" tag link below to see more posts on this subject). 

More theonomy

The wheels grind slowly here. Mostly they grind fairly small.... my record for a delayed response to an e-mail was 2 1/2 years, but I got there.

But I do owe David M who posted a comment on an earlier post an apology, because it's sat in my inbox far too long. Here we go:

The question that I'm left with is: what's the Biblical basis for your view of the role of government? (By which I'm not trying to imply that I don't think there is one!)

Romans 13 has to be a key passage. One key principle is surely this one: "For there is no authority but from God" (v1). That means that government is a "positive" institution: the authority is a positive grant from God.

It follows from that that the question then becomes, "what authority has God granted to governments?" Because any other "authority" then seek to wield cannot be legitimate. When Peter said, "We must obey God rather than men", he showed that this authority grant was not unlimited.

Then the question has to become "what authority has God said in the Bible as being granted to governments?" Because it is inconceivable that God has given such important authority without telling us what it is, and the Bible is where God reveals his mind. How can he be a "servant of God" (v4) unless God gives him some instructions for his service?

Verses 3 and 4 also make clear the positive and negative side of the government's work. Positively, to reward what is good; negatively, to punish wrongdoing (and thereby cause fear in others to prevent them from doing it).

Of course, "good" and "evil" must also be defined by Scripture. The government should not arbitrarily decide, for example, that earning an un-approved of amount of money is an evil to be punitively taxed, or that sexual perversions are a good that needs lots of funding to promote and protect.

Also, it does not mean that all good and all evil are within the realm of government. Nobody should be imprisoned for original sin or unbelief, and the government should not break down your front door to make sure it rewards all the acts of kindness between brothers and sisters in the home or reduces taxes for believers. I believe in the idea of "sphere sovereignty" - God has instituted different authorities, family, church and state, and these are not a neat hierarchy with state at the top, but overlapping spheres.

The Old Covenant law can guide us, if we make due allowance for its unique nature as the Covenant between God and his theocratic nation. This is what the Reformers meant by the "general equity" of the law - it has useful and abiding principles. It is wrong to retain the theocratic clothing, but the principles remain.

One important thing is that there is no hint that the government's authority depends on the mode by which it gained power. If someone seizes the role in a sinful way, yet they still in fact hold the role (and will be accountable for what they do in it) - and holding the role is the bit that makes them have the authority, not the manner of gaining it. This is implicit in Romans 13:1, given the Roman government of the time - which gave Paul privileges we can see in Acts (e.g. Acts 25:11).

There's so much more to say. I think I should leave it to any commenters to decide where we want to go next. But essentially we are saying that the government's mandate is moral. Their laws are to be related meaningfully to the summary of the Mosaic Law, "love your neighbour as yourself" - though in our present context (evaluated Biblically), not that of Moses. They are not to be arbitrary impositions for other ends. This is the Biblical grant to governments.

In practice this looks/sounds something like: adultery is a terrible/wicked/immoral thing, but it isn't the job of the government to issue laws against it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is roughly where you land too.

In the past I would have agreed on this particular example, but now I don't. I do not think that the present UK government should have such a law, because ultimately (the big picture of Scripture shows us), law can only really be fulfilled on the foundation of free grace - the grace of the gospel. Without the gospel foundation, we cannot workably have proper law. (That sounds like pragmatism, but I think it is Biblical pragmatism based on the big picture of Scripture). But, in a society where the gospel had worked its leaven-like ways, I do think that adultery should be a crime, as indeed it was in the UK. Why? Because marriage is a public covenant, not a private one. Married households are intended to be the units of a godly society - they are not secret, hidden entities. Acts that directly attack that basis should be crimes.

But if we chose a different example, I could well agree. Being deliberately nasty to people is wrong, but should not be a crime if it falls short of violence, harassment or an incitement to violence. Not keeping your promises is wrong, but should not be a crime if it falls short of a contract or if no significant loss is sustained. Of course, there is work to do in deciding where the boundary lies, but you get the point.

The basic idea of theonomy, as I understand it, is that the civil/judicial parts of the Mosaic Law (according to the tripartite division a la Aquinas and Calvin) teach us what God expects from a government - which would extend its role beyond your view. (This is probably a naive/simplistic explanation, but hopefully not inaccurate.)

I suppose this depends on in what manner they "teach us" - what filters and lenses there are to be applied between the Mosaic context and ours. I think what I wrote above would be accepted under the label "theonomy", given that I said that all law should be justified meaningfully from Scripture. But the label seems to be used quite widely, and I am not very competent to answer a lot of questions because I need to do more of my own study...

Law and politics

A reader writes! And having nothing else to say right now to keep the blog going, I'll answer this instead...

Hi David, I don't think I've ever commented here before, but I appreciate the things you write.

Thank you!

On the subject of politics and freedom:

How do you think Christians should feel about/respond to a potential ban on burkas (as has recently happened in Belgium, and I think is one of UKIP's policies, although I don't know if any of the major parties have mentioned it). On the one hand, governments telling people what they can and cannot wear doesn't seem like a good thing, and we might well wonder what the next thing to get banned would be. On the other, to oppose a ban would (it seems) be to defend an idolatrous practice.

I suppose that in the context of the present state of Western civilisation in regard of how it measures up to a godly society, spending too much energy on this issue is making sure that we don't let any of the Titanic's deckchairs fall over. In the context of a society which explicitly refuses to name Jesus Christ as Lord, what the state does with bits of clothing is making sure the patient's toenails are clipped when he's bleeding to death. But, a Christian politician looking to please God and serve man still has to have an answer because the issue's out there. I don't think that the government tolerating X is the same as defending or approving X. In lots of things the government simply has to say, "this is not by legitimate area of concern". Now, if people only ever wore burkhas because they were off on a suicide mission in a crowded station and they believed that Allah had told all suicide bombers to wear burkhas, then the government might have a legitimate interest in banning them. But banning them simply because they represent false religion is not in keeping with the government's limited role, which does not include restricting false religion. I think the state is intended to submit to and confess Jesus Christ as Lord, because he is Lord of the state; but this does not mean a negative role to restrict the activities of those who don't agree.

I think that continental powers are discussing banning the burkha because it is to their eyes a symbol of the oppression of women in Islam rather than because it represents false religion. I find it had to get worked up with enthusiasm for this policy; why not pass laws against the oppression of women in Islam, rather than just against the symbol? But in fact I think that the Bible doesn't make either of those two things the God-given work of the state. Families have authority from God to employ their own symbols (only if it is obscene does it become a matter for the state) and the oppression of women in Islam can only ultimately be undone by a change of heart through the advance of the gospel, not an external attack on the symbol. Though symbols point to significant realities, yet we don't want people to think that the kingdom of God is a matter of clothes and appearance rather than righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

So basically I think that Christians should assert that people are free under God to choose whatever they wish to wear without interference from the state, and that we wish to approach Muslims with the gospel, not with restrictive and intrusive laws on their appearance.

Similarly, how do you feel about those protesting about the planned Mega-Mosque in/near Dudley?

Again, it seems inconsistent. If you allow large numbers of Muslims into an area, then forbidding them to live as Muslims is churlish. Choose one or the other; you can't welcome people who self-identify as Muslims without allowing them to be Muslims. If they are allowed in the country they should be allowed to worship according to their consciences, because God has placed worship as a matter under the authority of the individual, not the state. Islam is a legalistic, external and crudely territorial religion and for Christians to protest against mosques is for us to confuse Muslims about how knowing Jesus Christ is a distinctively different experience. The best protest against mosques is gospel preaching. To be sure, a mega-mosque may drastically change the character of an area and there are such things as planning laws and zoning laws which should be applied and can be done without the state over-extending its God-given role. They should obey the same planning laws as everyone else; I don't know anything about if or how that applies in this particular case. Perhaps a protest against a mega-mosque is a proxy-protest against mass immigration, but I think a Christian needs to be careful that he does not compromise his gospel witness by becoming seen by the unsaved person as an enemy protester instead of a friendly evangelist.

(Since you mentioned Doug Wilson, I'd like to ask your views on theonomy, but perhaps that's a little much for a blog comment!)

If you elaborate on the question a bit to help me I can try in a future post!

God bless,
David

Voting for Christian values

One insight that Douglas Wilson describes well is this: We want a free nation: good. But free nations need free men. And there are no free men without Jesus Christ. None; none at all.

Hence I view the various likely outcomes of the upcoming UK general election as being like finding out which one of your limbs is going to be hacked off first, and whether it's going to be done with a blunt instrument or a newly oiled chainsaw.

One party leader, a self-professed atheist, wrote in a church newsletter that his party's policies were based upon Christian values. Ha ha.

Christian value number one is that Jesus Christ is Lord. Lord of all. Lord of our innermost thoughts; but also Lord of politics, Lord of taxation, Lord of government borrowing, Lord of social and family policy. Lord of all: or not really Lord at all.

When we start to evaluate by this Biblical standard, the fact is that Christian action as salt and light in the present UK political scene is basically about trying to stop the overwhelming stench from the rotting corpse finishing the country off sooner rather than later. That action is of value and has a good and proper place. I thank God for those doing it. But the regeneration of the UK will not come from gaining political agreement to a lobotomised set of Christian values. (That's not a veiled criticism of anyone in particular's work, by the way). It'll come when we eventually see, by the power and mercy of God, the original Christian value taking root once again. That's what made the UK truly great amongst nations; that's what makes any nation truly great. In the past, we bowed to the Lordship of Christ - and not in a hypocritical manner that was afraid to actually state his name and identity.

The universe belongs to Jesus Christ, being made by and for him: the pathetic and miserable game of trying to make the world work without recognising or acknowledging him won't work because it can't work. It's impossible, because Jesus actually is Lord. If we want to see the fruit of Christian living in the UK, then the huge task today is to trust in God and go to the painful, sacrificial work needed to plant the roots once again. Jesus Christ works through Christians. The most fundamental question for us who are Christians is whether the Lordship of Christ is a daily reality in our "ordinary" lives, or whether it's something that we like a politician just pay lip-service too when it seems like the right thing to do. How is it with you?

I suppose some passing atheist might think that this post is a call to set up a theocracy. If you do, you misunderstood everything I said.

When youths are your leaders

" And there are gathered unto him vain men, the children of Belial, and have strengthened themselves against Rehoboam the son of Solomon, when Rehoboam was young and tender-hearted, and could not withstand them." - 2 Chronicles 13:7

Question: How old do you think "young and tender-hearted" Rehoboam was?

Answer: " for Rehoboam was forty-one years old when he began to reign" - 2 Chronicles 12:13.

According the word of God, Isaiah 3:4, being led by the young is a judgement of God upon a nation. " And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them." This ought to be obvious; younger people have less experience of life and of the world and of making mistakes. They can of course much better understand the points of view and experiences of people at different stages of life. Therefore when leadership is characterised by youth, something is wrong.

The last UK prime minister to win an election, Tony Blair, became an MP aged 29 and became prime minister aged 43. 43 is also the age of the two leaders of the two main opposition parties fighting the present election. Nick Clegg entered parliament aged 38, and David Cameron did at age 34. The present prime minister, Gordon Brown, entered parliament at age 32 and became shadow chancellor at age 38, then the real thing at 43. The present shadow chancellor is 38, having entered parliament a month after leaving his twenties. If David Cameron becomes the next prime minister, he will (all being well with his wife's pregnancy) be the third in a row to have shared 10 Downing Street with a baby.

In other words, these aren't one-offs; it's a trend. And the general opinion of the public is not that we are just blessed with an outstanding batch of prodigies; the public stock of politicians and their leadership is at a long-term low.

The Bible requires that church leaders prove themselves in their families, and particularly with their children; "For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" (1 Timothy 3:5). This does not necessarily mean that a church elder has to have grown up children; the fruits of parenting policy can be seen well before this. But the basic assumption is that nobody is entrusted with responsibility in a larger area of life who has not proven themselves in a smaller. The UK has 58 million citizens; it cannot be and is not (as can be seen by reading their biographies) true that its political leaders learnt and achieved more in the 10 or so years of adult life before entering parliament than many other people did in the, say, 35 years before reaching age 55 at which perhaps suitable political leaders would become clear. Remember: at 41, according to the Word of God, Rehoboam was a youth.

Of course, there are prodigies; Spurgeon was a pastor in his teens, and Calvin wrote the Institutes in his twenties. And of course age does not automatically bring wisdom or blessing - we'd surely choose all of the above politicians in preference to Robert Mugabe, for example. But the point is that such as Spurgeon and Calvin are prodigies. When youth leadership is the norm, you are not witnessing the unfolding of God's blessing, but his curse. And the fact that nobody comments on this phenomena or finds it remarkable (or even thinks it's good, which presumably we must do, as these people didn't become leaders without winning chains of popularity contests) shows how far the curse has gone. That is the situation that the UK presently finds itself in.