There's so much distortion and manipulation of language in the political sphere today, all intended to demonize the other side. Thank you for this balanced and objective take.
I think that another big problem with public debate right now is that each side feels like if they concede a point then it somehow lessens their own position, so what ends up happening is that both sides end up supporting ridiculous positions because if they don't then it somehow means the other side won.
I believe this is a false equivalency. I understand the sentiment behind the 'both sides' argument, but it often falls short when the content of those sides' positions differs dramatically. It's true, both sides have individuals who express unpopular or outlandish views. However, on core issues like healthcare and education (for example) we see a clear divergence. For many on the left, ensuring universal access to healthcare and affordable higher education is about promoting opportunity and well-being for all citizens. Meanwhile, most on the right advocate for policies that would limit access to these same basic necessities, often based on anxieties about economic impact or cultural change. Ultimately, we need to move beyond simplistic comparisons and focus on the actual substance and consequences of different policy proposals, seeking solutions that prioritize fairness and compassion. The right's position is often a function of fear of other, of change, or desire to simply wield power, and while yes there are some goofballs on the left, the starting point, the perspective, and the outcome is very different.
This entire discussion and the conflict around it comes down to one question: what set of values is at the top of the pyramid? In other words, by what values will a nation determine its laws? For a Christian, this shouldn't be a difficult question to answer, but as we see by the responses of many who self-describe as Christian, it is.
Fair, but good luck reconciling Christianity with the Deism that built the American polity. It was designed to keep any religious faction from having dominance. A wise lesson given the wars that ravaged Europe. Perhaps if we all focused on our own conscience and our own Christianity, we would find we are busier trying to feed the hungry, heal the sick, etc., rather than debating over which groups or books must be banned. It's when you take a religion that was born by holding the mirror up to powers and you try to give it the power of Rex Mundi, and you're left with the same divisive trash: politics. Just instead of accusing people of communism, we call them heretics. Which is scarier? I ask because as someone who studied political science and who also studies theology, biblical history, and apologetics, I have come across some wacky people who are just dead wrong about what they think is and is not Biblical Christianity. I would argue that most of the evangelicals who are responsible for voting for fascists (and I'm deadly serious- trump wants to suspend the Constitution- his words; I can provide sources) but that's OK because they're pro life and said they'll ban abortion. They aren't pro life; they're pro power and frankly I'm sick of seeing good people duped by charlatans, and American calvinism has produced TONS of those.
You made a good point about how we need clarity in our discussions. The proponents appear to be trying to make it more clear, while the opponents have been trying to make things less clear by lumping in all sorts of people and ideas (they would probably call you a proponent as well). You mentioned not being a nationalist so I would be interested in a video on what you do consider yourself to be (doesn’t have to get political, could be more philosophical). You have a lot of good and interesting things to say about culture, values, philosophy, and theology that I want to hear you explain your thoughts more. Love you brother, have a blessed Christmas season.
Very incisive and, I would say, helpful commentary. I personally would like to make America constitutional again, and renew the battle for hearts and minds _within_ the bounds that the law and constitution permit, including the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. This is what the Kingdom is like, at a wheat and tares, yeast and dough level. If we want Christian governance, _with_ the consent of the governed, we can't enforce this top down. Neither can we allow our existing opportunities to embody and express the Christian message to be eroded or constrained by government action (e.g., by misapplication of the Establishment Clause).
Excellent comment. I agree that the Establishment Clause has been too narrowly interpreted; however, its original purpose was a good one (no single established state church like the Church of England). But the Free Exercise clause along with Free Speech are awesome rights in our Constitution that the Reformation era reformers would have cherished given the persecution they received from both the RC Church and many secular authorities. The freedom to spread the most powerful message, the Gospel, is key to Christianity being revived in America.
You voiced my concerns - not about the documentary, I don’t know anything about it - but about the state of things in America and in Evangelical Christianity (and the political groups that associate with it). Good job, Doc.
Thank you Dr. Cooper. This topic is very much related to the symposium I attended this year on the doctrine of the two kingdoms at WLS. I like your perspectives on the current culture and am happy that we have the same current world view. What I find best about these videos is that they give some comfort to someone like myself who often feels alone in these observations which come not only from our observation, but even from the Holy Spirit. God bless!
Theres definitely a shift in tolerance and even support of christian nationalism. You can see it the way trent horn talked about jan hus in his video with lila rose (shout out to anglican aesthetics for his nice video on that), you can see it with scott hahn’s book “right and just” (shout out to john zmirak, traditional catholic, who is always a wonderful critique to integralism), and you can here further critiques of things from someone like kevin vallier, orthodox christian and a philosopher. I’ve seen more protestants succumb to this and even find allies among other non protestant/non christian groups. Tragic days, yet, there is hope in christ.
Proponents of a Christian state/nation have made various proposals and are seeking to hammer out one conclusive platform. That takes time. Proponents have invited other conservative Christians who oppose the mere premise to discuss it with them, but opponents ignore their requests and seem ignorant of what they actually have written.
First off how can we have a conversation around Christianity if we can’t start with the Bible. Col 3:11 “Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all” So the first issue is any racism in Christianity is already failing at being Christian every bit as much as far left churches with women pastors. If “Christian Nationalism” just means Christian patriots or Christians that want to run for office that is great! If you are for trying to form a theocracy we can talk but whose denomination to what extent? Obviously a theocracy could only be run by AALC Lutherans right? What group, who, when, where? Are you talking about 20 guys in an Oregon militia trying to get a conference with Rome?
very similar to the Duggar family documentary. It starts very focused and defining terms and a very specific denomination that they belonged to, then later backs up and uses the critique to bash all of conservative christianity.
Depending on who is defining the term, I could be a staunch supporter or an ardent opponent of Christian Nationalism. That's the problem. Everyone means something different.
I Really appreciate this balance. As a suggestion, I think a nuanced respectful discussion of topics such as the traditional Lutheran 2 kingdom theology vs. Radical two kingdom theology or Kuyperian sphere sovereignty or whatever other theologies that are out there that can help the average Christian to understand the role of church and state and individual Christian participation in public life. You rightfully call out the nonsense in today's evangelical culture that only serves to divide. I have a listening ear because I don't have many answers but I am hungry to learn and I'm glad I stumbled on your channel that produces these good quality videos.
Hey Dr. Cooper, I really enjoy your content and the insights you continue to share that being said I was wondering what your thoughts are on some of the political theology thats been coming out of the Davenant Institute? Specifically Bradford Littlejohns "Christian Commonwealth" position or his work on the traditional doctrine of "The Two Kingdoms" (as opposed to the Escondido R2K version of the two kingdoms)?
His little book on the two kingdoms is basically the Lutheran position. I haven't looked into his more recent work on the subject, but I think we're mostly on the same page.
While I understand why people go to the extremes, I believe people still need to be held responsible for their own actions. This is an issue on both sides of the political spectrum. There is a lot of blame going around, instead of people being held accountable.
Yes, yes, exactly! I'm German and I loved the "old" type of American patriotism, where everyone, regardless of ethnic background, could become American and be a patriot. Whereas here in Germany you best have a German heritage dating back 4 generations if you even want people to consider you German or patriotic at all. It's probably based in the "ius sanguinis" in Germany which claims, you are German if you have German blood, as opposed to the "ius solis" - which means you have the nationality of the country you are born in, regardless of heritage.
Its insane to say anything is wrong with what has been for thousands of years and blessed by God in scripture. And continues to be absolutely fine for all nations outside the west.
@@TheOtherCaleb Whay do you think the promised land and the whole sentiment around it is? You know, a land with an indigenous people God said it is right for his chosen to take for themselves.
@TheOtherCaleb We are His Chosen Israel. Our Father wants every good thing for us. For example, All the things that America wants for Israel, it should want for itself as well. It's a comment section, try to see the forest and not just the flaws in the bark of a one inch section of one tree.
Whenever I run into someone afraid of Christian Nationalism, the first thing I do is ask what they even mean by that. Then I ask what they think of Atheist Globalism.
As a Christian (not Lutheran) i have such an inclination towards having all of God's law govern politics. What else could be better? I also understand that if Torah didnt make people obey, how could any other law? Where to draw the line of punishing rebellion against God's law seems to be where i as a Christian think about Christ in nationalism. I wouldn't even know where else to start. Help me out if you have any other kind of distinctions or direction
We could create a huge system for enforcing morality, but even if we had good intentions, what would happen? Power hungry people would seize power and/or kill us and then use that system to establish a state religion. Nationalism seems opposed to socialism now, but both lead down the same road of 20th century horrors. The law ought to be very simple: don't hurt people and don't take their stuff. What we need to work out is who counts as a person (it's all human beings).
Worry about apologetics before forcing Christian law on everyone. Also, why did Jesus never show concern about the supposed priority of setting up a religious state? Curious.
@@sincerelysarcastic4400Nationalism and socialism, funny enough, have usually gone hand in hand throughout history. Many laymen conservatives are unaware of that fact.
Since everyone seems to define "God's law" quite differently, my first question would be - what do you think is "God's law" and which laws are Christians even supposed to follow? Honestly I rarely see Christians online who can answer that question according to the new testament. Especially since the new testament claims, if you think you need to follow old testament law, you need to follow all of it. All of the 613 rules. The only "law" Christians are supposed to follow is to love each other. That's it. And a small part of what is called "the noahide laws". That's no basis for establishing "God's law" in a country. And especially when I see how the Christian right in the US negates the social aspect of Jesus's teachings, I very much have doubts that a country that enforces "God's law" will ever exist in a way that's true to the teachings of Jesus. Just my 2 cts. We are not called to establish God's law, we are supposed to: This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. John:15:12 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. John:13:35
@@jdc9258 I'm much more interested in providing a positive way forward within the boundaries of Lutheran theology and social ethics than in giving critique.
@@DrJordanBCooper I wasn't meaning a critique. A compare and contrast between the two areas in Christendom would be helpful for those who don't understand the background or context. Otherwise, it's fruitless even to bring up the men's names
I hear and read the term "Christian Nationalism" in both regular media and social media all the time, but I don't recall ever hearing anyone I know ever use the term, let alone describe themselves as such.
It’s a dichotomy and I don’t know if there is a solution. On the one hand, the U.S. was designed to not have a state religion as every European state did. On the other hand, Western civilization norms are based on Christian principles (although the progressives will deny this) - from abolishing slavery to treating women equally under the law with men. Quite frankly, while their methods are not right, many of the so-called Christian Nationalists simply want us to not slip back into paganism, which is where the left wants to take us.
Or maybe the religious right wants a religious dictatorship like Franscisco Franco in 1930s Spain. All those fascist axis regimes were married to a dominant church. As in Putins Russia yoday.
@@ka9fon No, definitely not. That sort of authoritarian is distinctly leftist and opposed to Biblical civil law. The system set up under Moses is very decentralized, with only a high judge to settle more national disputes. Even appointing a king explicitly went against the Law as originally set up. But the left tries to say that the right wanting to enforce laws against murder instead of releasing them with no bail is somehow "authoritarian" while clamping down on the free speech of people and forcing people to approve of whatever morals they made up this week. It is hypocritical to the max, and that "christians" even play along with it shows that they reject Christ as king and worship Caesar.
From what I have and heard I don’t think that Christian Nationalism is entirely based on name-calling from the Left or other groups. There are concerns about whether Social Conservatives are being heard in today’s media. There is an appeal to upholding institutions, as your channel has supported. There is the feeling, or outright proof that Big Tech or Big Business has allied against Christian beliefs or moral practices. I am not a Christian Nationalist. I believe Christians still need to act within political coalitions within this country.
On the subject of male vs. female performance, I recall that when I went to my city's unemployment centre there was the main job-finding plan that was aimed at everyone below 30, but above that age only to "disadvantaged minorites" like women. Thankfully I passed because I'm under 30, but if I had been your age, Dr Cooper, my country would've basically given me a huge "F you" while helping a woman of the same age . . .
It has been my experience (especially throughout the pandy) that these kinds of conversations are best in person, not on social media. And it is 100% necessary to define each term used. I’ve seen soooo many people argue all using the same terms but meaning entirely different things. Very frustrating to witness, and especially to take part in and have people take everything you say wrong.
Excellent points here. It's also critical to put judgment aside. We aren't trying to invalidate the point by attacking the one making it as that is a fallacy. It is also impossible to do on social media where all intellectual pursuit goes to die.
God's word is full of explicit instruction for how to navigate family life and church life, but is practically silent on how to navigate government life, besides mere submission. Though it is ordained by God, scripture does seem to suggest that government is at best a secondary consideration for the follower of Jesus Christ. Government is government, it varies from place to place. We wrestle not with flesh and blood, seems to me, to be the most telling sentiment concerning this issue. Engage with the state as per what is appropriate for the context.
Race aside, certain cultures are definitely better and worse than others. I come from a country where 50% of all immigrants are from on specific place. After 8 years our country is measurably lower in every aspect. Our wages were driven down because this group will work for under the legal amount, our laws aren’t applied fairly and this group gets special treatment. To a lot of people it is hard to separate peoples race and culture. So when people start to dislike the culture that injected itself into my country, they often link the race as well.
Wages aren't driven down by immigrants but by politicians and businesses. And there are quite a few jobs that seem "too low" for certain people. I know because I worked a lot of those jobs 😂. But it's a clever trick of politicians to play us against each other so we don't see how the true problem is that worldwide the upper 1 percent owns about half of the wealth. But do I hear anyone, either in the US or Europe, who says we need to raise taxes for the super rich? Nope. People still believe in "trickle down economics" which has been utterly debunked.
The specific group of people being let in are literally accepting contracts that are lower that the legal wages, which means other companies hire them under the same illegal law wage contracts and don’t hire the people already in my country at the legal wage. Immigrants certainly do lower the wages when they are told they can bring their families over if they help do work for less and undermine the legal pay. All of this is of course officiated by my government who is forming an aristocracy with this certain group. @@MrSeedi76
A lot of high context subtweeting here. Kind of hard to understand what you are talking about, if you don't give quotes and examples - especially for us non-Americans. I consider myself to be a nationalist and a christian. A historically completely uncomplicated position to take - country, folk and God, simple as. But I do agree that "Christian Nationalism" in the modern american context is very vague. It also feels a bit like an OP to to be honest; rallying people aorund a vague concept, and fill it with meaning later.
Nationalism, according to the dictionary, is "the belief that a particular culture or ethnic group constitutes a distinct people deserving of political self determination". It's really a question of who rules. Anti nationalists, like this guy, don't believe in self government. Scripture describes rule by foreigners as a punishment or and embarrassment, so no person can hold to scripture and not be a Christian nationalist.
I agree. The only point against us that people want to mix in chauvinism, which is something no Christian nationalist has proposed, as far as I can see it.
@@willhelmi2095 interesting Chauvinism (/ˈʃoʊvɪnɪzəm/ SHOH-vih-nih-zəm) is the unreasonable belief in the superiority or dominance of one's own group or people, who are seen as strong and virtuous, while others are considered weak, unworthy, or inferior. If someone believes Christian morals to be "unreasonable", sounds like a genetic anti Christian position.
Sir, that's not how nationalism is generally used in these conversations. To say that I think we should have foreign rulers controlling us is bizarre. And is not what anyone is talking about in this conversation.
@@DrJordanBCooper if you, yourself, reject the dictionary then you are as much of the problem as anyone else. The dictionary definition is precisely what people were using to discuss nationalism before the language was corrupted. I highly suggest returning to a sane debate.
@@ZorligI think the problem is not nationalism but the idea that politicians can enforce a definition of what it means to be Christian. So far, I never even saw an evangelical or fundamentalist online who could answer the question which laws from the old testament people are supposed to follow who are followers of Christ and not Jewish. All I see are debates about things people believe are somehow in the Bible that clearly aren't. Like "family values" even though Jesus said: For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. Matthew:10:35 And He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Matthew:10:37 Or people who somehow think the Bible has anything to say about homosexuality even though that is a concept of the 19th century utterly unfamiliar to the writers of the new testament. Or people who argue, "social justice" is somehow bad, even though Jesus told us to see Him in the marginalized, even in people in prison. All these things seem to be absent in the modern day debate. I see most often that people use certain cherry picked verses from the Bible to bolster up their views that they already had. Not the other way around, to challenge their own view and being under the judgment of holy scripture. Because we are ALL deserving of God's wrath. Only the grace of God in Jesus and his sacrifice is what keeps us from this wrath.
Thank you, Dr Cooper! I heartily agree with your analysis on the Christian political discourse. It is human nature to use our political opinions to justify our souls. We might expect nonbelievers to do that, but I fear many of us Christians are now doing the same.
Nobody on the left is defining terms? What exactly are you reading? Are you generalizing based on Twitter comments? I can give you a robust definition and history, it just doesn't fit in a tweet.
In the published articles I have read (many of which purport to be scholarly) on the topic, I see a lot of citations of other critics on left to define terms, but not much interaction at all with any literature that defends the view they claim to be critiquing. Further, the definitions that are given are either extremely vague, or are presented in a way that the definition itself is assuming what has to be proven.
What the Church--and specifically the United States Church--actually needs right now is somebody to stand up and clearly explain what the Christian's role is in relationship to the State, defining what is and is not biblical in relation to the church's relationship to the State. Getting back to a robust biblical eschatology is key in this as well Neither extreme in this debate is very rational right now. Wolfe and his followers have used rhetoric that smacks of Kinism, and as for Phil Vischer, something caused him to do a theological flip to modernism a few years ago (I couldn't tell you what). It's like watching the Hatfields and McCoys shoot it out and not really rooting for either side to win. Both sides in this really are engaged in the idolatry of politics.
The question of “what aspects of God’s law should inform a Christian politics” is THE central question. It denies the “neutrality”that secularism on its way to paganism promotes. Which is a heretical form of the two kingdoms theology, that makes the state into god (a false liberalism). But it also resists the totalitarian use of the moral law and a confusion of the institutions of Church and State (a false conservatism). We don’t realize that our constitutional system was a liberal form of Christian establishment. That is, it denied that the state was God via the first amendment and that worked because culturally some type of Jesus was God. And informally one could not practice human sacrifice because of Christian morality. This morality was the lens used to hide a certain kind of Christian establishment which was compatible with a certain non-establishment interpretation of the first amendment. But the moral culture which upheld that system is being strained by the new identity morality and sexual anthropology which conflicts with the old order and so it’s exposing the hidden Christian norms that underwrote the old constitutional order. As a result the new sexual rights are in direct conflict with the first amendment. And we are being forced to decide between them. The moral questions of our society are a proxy for the ancient question of what God/god rules our social order. That is what is happening in my perspective as a lawyer and student of history.
I think that is the hard balancing act is for me: trying to discern civic duty of Christians and those who just want the government to legislate as a church upon everyone. They have some clear overlaps and clear differences. While I am more bias against government and other man made institutions, I can't deny that others feel differently. But those who insist that use God's Law as a prosperity gospel for nations, then I think that's where I say that's a heresy of action. I can't judge their salvation, maybe understand their "fruits" are rotten, but it's hard to converse with those who believe a top down revival of Judeo-Chrisitain values is the correct source of "life in Christ" or of governence... It then sounds like I hate the law but I think it's a misuse of the law and then I'm stuck all over again. Some see it as an opportunity to witness, others as a place of security against spiritual forces, and I am left wondering "what do they think sin is?" Thank you for the video, it is very well grounded and is an amazing reminder of how we are to hear everyone and I needed to hear that.
@@ka9fon but for all those in authority since God wills all men to be saved like Timothy says? Who else is he speaking about other than rulers of governments and nations? And Christ says to teach the nations to obey Christ. Take heed oh kings of the earth and kiss the Son?
@Mason_O Psalm 2 is a Messianic psalm talking place when Christ comes in glory to destroy Satan and set up His earthly kingdom. Now the God of this world Satan runs it. And our mission is to teach the world. The kingdom of God is in our hearts.
@@ka9fon why are we to think ps 2 is to be understood that way? It seems like the New Testament authors never used it that way in their quotations? And doesn’t the Lutheran in this video not believe in an earthly reign?
@Mason_O it's called rightly dividing the Word and aware of dispensations. Israel will be God's earthly people while the church will be His heavenly. As a baptist, I believe this place is not my home. I'm just passing through. There will be Christ's earthly kingdom after He subdues His enemies at His coming. But first the Great Tribulation must happen.
How would you act if you were a Christian in the underground church in Iran? I am willing to bet your ideals of Christian Nationalism would be thrown out the window. The point is this: as a Christian, you are to engage in civic life as is appropriate for that context. That may mean supporting godly rulers and rules that align with God's word. In another context it may mean navigating a Muslim theocracy without worshipping false gods. There is no context I can think of in which the Christian, in engaging with civil life, would be compelled to support the ushering in of an authoritarian state that undermines the core values of that society, so as to impose biblical values on an unbelieving population.
I’d wager the primary difference between you and many eventual Trump voters is willingness to participate in the two party system. Everyone has a line somewhere in which they’d vote outside its confines. Either that or you’re a filthy libertarian! (Joking)
Dear Dr. Cooper, Thank you for comments. There are two things that I would like to highlight regarding Christian Nationalism. First, discussing what Christian Nationalism means as an idea is besides the point when the target is how this name gets attached to real social movements and what effects these have in the real world. It doesn’t really matter whether there is some ‘theorist’ (for lack of a better term) who articulates a beneficial theory of how state and church should mutually interact when you have groups ready to do violence and leaders rallying people to the banner of Christian Nationalism as they inderstand it (with some even calling for Trump to step in as a Protestant Franco). At that point, the locus of gravity just shifts towards what is gaining most traction (whether real or amplified by the media, to which I must admit, as an overseas observer, I cannot judge reliably how much of it is real or amplified). It wouldn’t surprise me if many people will simply opt to change the name/tag for their conception to suitably distance themselves from the other thing, just like social democracy cut itself off from socialism and communism to pursue reform rather than revolution. This brings me to my second point. I don’t want to appear smug or condescending in writing this, but there seems to be a parallel here in how Americans generally have painted any attempt to introduce or even maintain anything like a welfare state as a slippery slope towards a socialist hellscape. I know the social and cultural issues are of more concern to you, but the fact remains that the most violent resistance has always been towards the economic settlement that the New Deal brought and it has always been opposed in the name of protecting the power of elites and those who benefit from it, regardless of what real benefits a functioning welfare state has for the vast majority of people (and this is empirically verifiable). This may be an opportunity to reassess whether we Christians generally have been appropriately charitable in approaching what liberals think is in the pursuit of the commonweal and whether we are doing our best to prevent spiritual snakeoil from circulating in our communities. Merry Christmas
There's nothing wrong with "ethno" nationalism. Nationhood was always tied to the race of people, the Romans knew this, the Israelites, and the Greeks. I attend my Lutheran church, and we pray for the other churches within our nation, but I find it so Ironic they are "Korean Lutheran Church" and the "Somalian Lutheran Church" which are tied directly to ethnicity, and no one bats an eye. But suddenly young white men are not hating themselves and actually loving their own people who are under attack is somehow now "demonic". Seriously Dr. Jordan, that's just you being frankly anti-white. It is natural, normal, and good to feel a kinship of love of your own race, which Saint Paul expressed greatly in Romans 9:3. I too, love my race that I would be cut off from Christ for the sake of their salvation. The Western Classical notion of identity is from Herodotus’ Histories, written in the 5th century B.C. It’s from Herodotus that we have the story of the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae, told in the broader context of the entire Hellenic world’s successful resistance to the Persian invasion. In order to do that, the Spartans (Dorians) and Athenians (Ionians) had to overcome their differences and join together to defend what was common to both of them as Greeks. In Book VIII, there is a scene in which the Athenians explain to a messenger from Sparta why the Spartans should side with the Athenians and not the Persians. “First and foremost of these is that the images and buildings of the gods have been burned and demolished, so that we are bound by necessity to exact the greatest revenge on the man who performed these deeds, rather than to make agreements with him. And second, it would not be fitting for the Athenians to prove traitors to the Greek people, with whom we are united in sharing the same kinship and language, with whom we have established shrines and conduct sacrifices to the gods together, and with whom we also share the same way of life.” (VIII:144.2) In this passage are no less than four criteria for being a Greek, or Hellene: common religion, common blood, common language, and common customs. That was 2500 years ago, this is still the best and most comprehensive working definition of national identity. This is because one can extract it from this particular situation in ancient history and apply it to virtually anywhere in the world at any time. The word the bible uses for "nation" is "ethnos" which is race, which is defined as: Common religion, Common blood, Common language, and Common customs. This is note hateful, this is simply the truth. Especially when Europeans are under unparalleled attacks and replacement migration takes over the home countries.
Yes. I, as a German myself, want to add that it is obviously true that neither Luther nor any Lutheran Theologian up to maybe 1960 would have supported the current replacement of the German population. That we even have this discussion is ridiculous.
@@willhelmi2095 The Athenian's in around 400 BC had literal blood and soil laws that granted citizenship based on if you had Athenian blood. And Tactius wrote about the Germans in 98 AD: "The Germans themselves I should regard as aboriginal, and not mixed at all with other races through immigration or intercourse. For in former times, it was not by land but on shipboard that those who sought to emigrate would arrive; and the boundless and, so to speak, hostile ocean beyond us, is seldom entered by a sail from our world." and Airstotle: “[the] parent seems by nature to feel [philia] for offspring and offspring for parent … [philia] is felt mutually by members of the same race” philia’ (φιλία, roughly translating to “brotherly love”) Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle (340 BC) We see this all throughout history for thousands of years UNTIL the last 40-80 years where that's been flipped on it's head. These people from over a thousand years ago understand race better then most modern people do. And yes, I hate to see the demographic replacement in Germany, my grandmother is from Rugen, and it is terrible to see what is happening in your country. In 400 years, all Germans will be either mixed or gone as a coherent people. Not only that, Immigrants cost Germany 15.4 billion euros in welfare per year "The number of German recipients of welfare benefits has halved since 2010, while the number of foreign nationals receiving social assistance payments has doubled, government data has revealed." "It revealed that the number of German recipients of the citizens’ allowance had almost halved from 5.2 million in 2020 to 2.9 million as of February 2023. In contrast, foreign recipients of social benefits had doubled from 1.3 million people in 2010 to 2.6 million currently." The West, which is white and always has been, is under attack and demographic replacement. Whites must become racially conscious again in order to secure their racial interest just as every other race does.
I am a christian nationalist in the way that I think of myself as a citizen of the Kingdom of God and that secular authorities should have christian morality. And am not a christian nationalist in the way that I don't believe that the state has authority over the church and that the church should not participate in the sinful business of politics. Referring to the Barmen declaration of 1934.🏵❤️✝️
Unfortunately, I think the 'Christian Nationalist' label is generally a slander against Christians. It's being promoted by secularists and heretical churches to demonize bible adherent Christians who love Jesus and have a great appreciation for allowing our country to exist. I agree that theocracy is wrong.
What is wrong with you? Why do you think liberal’s would prefer your political views, and if they wouldn’t then what do you have to gain by defining Christian policies in a different way?
It seems to me where the individual Christian stands on how the State should influence/maintain/uphold social and cultural norms is directly related to their eschatological views. Premils tend to lean toward adherence to the historic 2 kingdom theology whereas Postmils and Amils think the Church should have more influence on the Civil Magistrate.
Tornadoes in Twister and Taz are trying to find why I would even have a pulse when people find me so boring. They don't chew gum where I walk with my own feet.
As far as I understand it, as someone outside the US whose mothertongue is not english, the Christian Nationalism that is problematic is the type that would lead to a opressive theocracy a la Iran. Maybe the negative reaction is as harsh as it is because of the fear of it leading to sth akin to that, esp. looking at how non muslims are treated there. I have a problem with overblown Nationalism of anykind. But then again I already get uncomfortable reading/hearing about the pledge of allegiance in schools. We had severe problems with nationalism in the past. Didnt end well for us. Trump is not left at all. He's an opportunist, capitalist, incompetent at running your country and a criminal. I don't understand how one can support that carricature of a rich man. As far as I can see he has no concern for the common man at all. Also the January 6 storming of the capitol to interrupt the peaceful constitutional transfer of power from one elected head of state to his elected successor? Not exactly a glowing reference. Women are not doing so much better in terms of getting paid the same for the same job. The problems with getting back into a job after having a child are still very much mesurable in most countries in the world (sweden maybe not as much, but there both parents are much more encouraged to take time off with the new born afaik). From what I can tell women are doing better mental health wise, cause they are not discouraged from talking about and looking at their mental problems by society as much. Since I support social wellfare, more state regulated labour laws that actually benefit the employee, healthcare that your average citizen can affort and that the state should look out for its citizens not its cooporations I guess in american terms I'd be quite left. If a church body wants to influence politics? Make a party and run for elections. But then again that works better in a political landscape that is not a 2 party system. Encourage your members to take up Public Offices. maybe have contracts with the churches so that the finance ministry handels the organisational side of tithing via the tax offices. Have religious education of your predominant denominations available as electives in school. That I wouldn't bat an eyelid on.
@@DrJordanBCooper one big concern on my part concerning Christian Nationalism is with the Nationalism of it all: Who is the Nation in that Nationalism? once those that want a Christian Nationstate are in power, which Christianity will it be? will I still be free to practice in the Lutheran tradition? Will Infant Baptism still be allowed? Or will it be a complete abomination a la the Handmaids Tale? Who defines who is part of that Christian nation? How narrow are those definitions? What happens to those on the outside of the definition? People have killed others for not being "the right kind of Christian" way more than once throughout history. Nothing against a Christian going into office making policy according to his believes. If he or she is elected and doesn't persecute people. But I wouldnt class wanting more Christians in Government as Christian Nationalism.
Wow! It’s almost like circumstances are causing God to put hooks in your mouth to pull you out of your ivory tower and force you to address the world the rest of us have to live in. Not a bad start! Who knows, if this trend continues, I may have to repent of charactering you as a “coward!” I’m not holding my breath just yet though.
@@DrJordanBCooper I usually don’t anymore but this one caught my eye. I don’t go looking for it but it still crosses my channel as though I were still subscribed. Go figure.🤷♂️BTW, It’s not a matter of not liking you. It’s that you could be more.
Bo and Luke are about Daddy Day Care. Coy and Vance are about Norbert. Either Chicago or Burlesque. People go back to their entertainment-related trenches and have probably left me alone some time ago. Peace at last.
I graduated high school in 1987, the year of Richard Ramirez, the California Nightstalker. There is a lot of nothing of my life. He died in San Quentin, having more attention than I seem to deserve. I can let him have his legacy and his attention. There are those who think San Quentin has true gravity because they have their weights in the right places, their cells.
The odd thing about American nationalism is a lot of the founders themselves weren't nationalists and for the most part (especially devout Christians like Roger Sherman and John Dickinson) were extremely locally minded men who saw nationalism as a threat to that Excellent video!
@@bradleymarshall5489Whataboutism fallacy. The nations the founders intended by the law limited naturalization to "free White person(s) ... of good character" and also a religious people.
@@FortniteBlaster2 ya but you're kind of presupposing that the founders saw the US as a nation to a degree. Sure they wanted more immigrants to be of that type but there were already pre-existing communities that varied greatly with Quakers working closely with Native Americans and New England towns having black citizens. The law you're referring to wasn't intended to destroy that
I never said it was intending to destroy that which you mentioned, I am saying the founders of America wanted a white and religious country, of which it was 90% white until the 1960 immigration which was put together by people who come from Palestine@@bradleymarshall5489
Appreciate your views and video. I will vote for Trump because I truly believe he's best for this country now but I would not consider myself a Christian Nationalist. Thank God for free speech. I'm 71 and white which is a fact not necessarily a reason.
The problem with Christian nationalism is that it inherently implies that everyone who's not a Christian is somehow less of an American than those who are. Christian nationalism says that Christians should take the lead and everyone else should just shut up and deal with it, whether it conflicts with their own personal values or not.
The term is not easily defineable or represented positively. It's a useless categorization, except for political polling because most self-identified christian nationslists (no matter the definition given) will vote a certain way. But, the term should be punted to the stratosphere and forgotten about
I am a citizen and I don’t want to live under the religious beliefs of my fellow citizens. I am free to oppose them for any reason that I choose including the fact that Jesus doesn’t want me for a sunbeam.
I agree with you. “Christian Nationalism” has no real definition. If you mean Christian who holds traditional American values like constitutional rights, small government, low taxes, sure, I’m also then a Christian who likes coffee and am a Christian hunter, a Christian wearer of Dickies brand work pants. If you mean the type that want racial segregation that’s gross and unbiblical (Col 3:11) which is actually part of my issue with a church having a “black caucus.” You are correct as to the cause of the anger we see. Beyond what you said we can’t as a society give one child an awesome coat and send the others out to work the field (Genesis 37:3-4) and not expect anger and ultimately violence. Also I struggle with voting for any candidate that supports any abortion or sexual immorality which really leaves me politically homeless these days because the lesser of two evils is still an evil. Sure I think the Democrats are openly hostile towards Biblical Christianity, but “Republicans” are apathetic and just Democrat lite making them only marginally better. If Trump was at least fully pro-life at least that would be one thing, but since he waffles on that even what’s the point. It’s like voting between Jeraboam non of Nebat, and Jehoram. I mean we don’t even have a Mannaseh who might repent when things get too bad.
No, God told the Israelites that their desire for a king will be something they regret. There was a form of government before that whih was NOT a theocratic monarchy and unless yo uthink it was an illegitimate government... Also, St. Paul was cool with the government of Nero, definitely not a theocratic monarchy on the OT model. If it was truly God's command to have a theocratic monarchy I guess you are forced to say St. Paul got that one wrong. St. Paul also said "All authority is instituted by God..." So I am just not seeing what you say in Scripture -- I see a variety of governing authorities ALL OF WHICH have some legitimacy in Scripture.
@@ebreissIn the same passage Paul notes that this authority punishes evil. I'm pretty sure that a country with thousands of legal (!) abortions per year is not included.
Some forms of governance are more propitious than others. None is above the Order of the Holy Spirit. Families, clans and kinships outlast republics, federations and corporations.
@@TheOtherCaleb Matthew 28:19-20 (KJV 1900): Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
@DrJordanBCooper The Christian understands that nations as well as individuals are accountable to God. It follows from this principle that individual Christians, as well as churches and denominations, are accountable to God. A further implication from this is that Christians and churches have a moral obligation to call the civil magistrates to be accountable for biblical morality. The 2 kingdoms theology was never intended to excuse our failure to prophetically challenge immorality in the government and the civil rule of law.
If Christian Nationalism has a purpose then it is to have people identify as Christian nationalists. In other words, if you buy into what the leaders of the movement are saying then you support them and those values and beliefs. The movement may not come right out and say that but ostensibly Christian Nationalism is a movement and like any movement it needs followers. There is only one problem. You have to believe what they tell you to believe. So basically, it strips away religious freedom even if you are a Christian. No Thank you
"you don't want to understand those people because you hate those people"... well said
You have never locked eyes with a person who doesn't need Jesus.
We need to be better at remembering this.
@@spartakos3178you’ve met those that choose to be irredeemable
There's so much distortion and manipulation of language in the political sphere today, all intended to demonize the other side. Thank you for this balanced and objective take.
"But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, OPEN TO REASON , full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere." James 3:17
I think that another big problem with public debate right now is that each side feels like if they concede a point then it somehow lessens their own position, so what ends up happening is that both sides end up supporting ridiculous positions because if they don't then it somehow means the other side won.
Very true about this discussion and many others.
I believe this is a false equivalency.
I understand the sentiment behind the 'both sides' argument, but it often falls short when the content of those sides' positions differs dramatically. It's true, both sides have individuals who express unpopular or outlandish views. However, on core issues like healthcare and education (for example) we see a clear divergence. For many on the left, ensuring universal access to healthcare and affordable higher education is about promoting opportunity and well-being for all citizens. Meanwhile, most on the right advocate for policies that would limit access to these same basic necessities, often based on anxieties about economic impact or cultural change. Ultimately, we need to move beyond simplistic comparisons and focus on the actual substance and consequences of different policy proposals, seeking solutions that prioritize fairness and compassion.
The right's position is often a function of fear of other, of change, or desire to simply wield power, and while yes there are some goofballs on the left, the starting point, the perspective, and the outcome is very different.
This entire discussion and the conflict around it comes down to one question: what set of values is at the top of the pyramid? In other words, by what values will a nation determine its laws?
For a Christian, this shouldn't be a difficult question to answer, but as we see by the responses of many who self-describe as Christian, it is.
Fair, but good luck reconciling Christianity with the Deism that built the American polity. It was designed to keep any religious faction from having dominance. A wise lesson given the wars that ravaged Europe. Perhaps if we all focused on our own conscience and our own Christianity, we would find we are busier trying to feed the hungry, heal the sick, etc., rather than debating over which groups or books must be banned. It's when you take a religion that was born by holding the mirror up to powers and you try to give it the power of Rex Mundi, and you're left with the same divisive trash: politics. Just instead of accusing people of communism, we call them heretics. Which is scarier? I ask because as someone who studied political science and who also studies theology, biblical history, and apologetics, I have come across some wacky people who are just dead wrong about what they think is and is not Biblical Christianity. I would argue that most of the evangelicals who are responsible for voting for fascists (and I'm deadly serious- trump wants to suspend the Constitution- his words; I can provide sources) but that's OK because they're pro life and said they'll ban abortion. They aren't pro life; they're pro power and frankly I'm sick of seeing good people duped by charlatans, and American calvinism has produced TONS of those.
Also, keep up the great work of promoting conservative Lutheranism. You make awesome videos!!
You made a good point about how we need clarity in our discussions. The proponents appear to be trying to make it more clear, while the opponents have been trying to make things less clear by lumping in all sorts of people and ideas (they would probably call you a proponent as well). You mentioned not being a nationalist so I would be interested in a video on what you do consider yourself to be (doesn’t have to get political, could be more philosophical). You have a lot of good and interesting things to say about culture, values, philosophy, and theology that I want to hear you explain your thoughts more. Love you brother, have a blessed Christmas season.
Very incisive and, I would say, helpful commentary.
I personally would like to make America constitutional again, and renew the battle for hearts and minds _within_ the bounds that the law and constitution permit, including the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. This is what the Kingdom is like, at a wheat and tares, yeast and dough level. If we want Christian governance, _with_ the consent of the governed, we can't enforce this top down. Neither can we allow our existing opportunities to embody and express the Christian message to be eroded or constrained by government action (e.g., by misapplication of the Establishment Clause).
Well said.
Excellent comment. I agree that the Establishment Clause has been too narrowly interpreted; however, its original purpose was a good one (no single established state church like the Church of England). But the Free Exercise clause along with Free Speech are awesome rights in our Constitution that the Reformation era reformers would have cherished given the persecution they received from both the RC Church and many secular authorities. The freedom to spread the most powerful message, the Gospel, is key to Christianity being revived in America.
You voiced my concerns - not about the documentary, I don’t know anything about it - but about the state of things in America and in Evangelical Christianity (and the political groups that associate with it). Good job, Doc.
Thank you Dr. Cooper. This topic is very much related to the symposium I attended this year on the doctrine of the two kingdoms at WLS. I like your perspectives on the current culture and am happy that we have the same current world view. What I find best about these videos is that they give some comfort to someone like myself who often feels alone in these observations which come not only from our observation, but even from the Holy Spirit. God bless!
Theres definitely a shift in tolerance and even support of christian nationalism. You can see it the way trent horn talked about jan hus in his video with lila rose (shout out to anglican aesthetics for his nice video on that), you can see it with scott hahn’s book “right and just” (shout out to john zmirak, traditional catholic, who is always a wonderful critique to integralism), and you can here further critiques of things from someone like kevin vallier, orthodox christian and a philosopher. I’ve seen more protestants succumb to this and even find allies among other non protestant/non christian groups. Tragic days, yet, there is hope in christ.
I agree with you
Proponents of a Christian state/nation have made various proposals and are seeking to hammer out one conclusive platform. That takes time. Proponents have invited other conservative Christians who oppose the mere premise to discuss it with them, but opponents ignore their requests and seem ignorant of what they actually have written.
The bad faith of (Christian?) institutionalists to silence debate is clear.
First off how can we have a conversation around Christianity if we can’t start with the Bible.
Col 3:11 “Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all”
So the first issue is any racism in Christianity is already failing at being Christian every bit as much as far left churches with women pastors.
If “Christian Nationalism” just means Christian patriots or Christians that want to run for office that is great!
If you are for trying to form a theocracy we can talk but whose denomination to what extent? Obviously a theocracy could only be run by AALC Lutherans right?
What group, who, when, where? Are you talking about 20 guys in an Oregon militia trying to get a conference with Rome?
very similar to the Duggar family documentary. It starts very focused and defining terms and a very specific denomination that they belonged to, then later backs up and uses the critique to bash all of conservative christianity.
Depending on who is defining the term, I could be a staunch supporter or an ardent opponent of Christian Nationalism. That's the problem. Everyone means something different.
Exactly.
I Really appreciate this balance. As a suggestion, I think a nuanced respectful discussion of topics such as the traditional Lutheran 2 kingdom theology vs. Radical two kingdom theology or Kuyperian sphere sovereignty or whatever other theologies that are out there that can help the average Christian to understand the role of church and state and individual Christian participation in public life. You rightfully call out the nonsense in today's evangelical culture that only serves to divide. I have a listening ear because I don't have many answers but I am hungry to learn and I'm glad I stumbled on your channel that produces these good quality videos.
Have you seen this talk I did on subject? It's quite old, but still relevant I think: czcams.com/video/oV3fWC29hdI/video.htmlsi=-0jcCrkcg_0eBirZ
Not an American, and I am very sympathetic towards the Christian Nationalism movement (especially Moscow), and I think you gave a fair treatment.
Thanks.
Hey Dr. Cooper, I really enjoy your content and the insights you continue to share that being said I was wondering what your thoughts are on some of the political theology thats been coming out of the Davenant Institute? Specifically Bradford Littlejohns "Christian Commonwealth" position or his work on the traditional doctrine of "The Two Kingdoms" (as opposed to the Escondido R2K version of the two kingdoms)?
His little book on the two kingdoms is basically the Lutheran position. I haven't looked into his more recent work on the subject, but I think we're mostly on the same page.
While I understand why people go to the extremes, I believe people still need to be held responsible for their own actions. This is an issue on both sides of the political spectrum. There is a lot of blame going around, instead of people being held accountable.
It seems there’s a lack of grace in our society today.
Please keep bringing these sorts of opinions to us and highlighting issues and movements. It's so helpful, thank you!
I am so encouraged to see Christian leaders speaking out against this damnable idolatry. Patriotism is not nationalism. Patriotism loves its neighbor.
Yes, yes, exactly! I'm German and I loved the "old" type of American patriotism, where everyone, regardless of ethnic background, could become American and be a patriot. Whereas here in Germany you best have a German heritage dating back 4 generations if you even want people to consider you German or patriotic at all. It's probably based in the "ius sanguinis" in Germany which claims, you are German if you have German blood, as opposed to the "ius solis" - which means you have the nationality of the country you are born in, regardless of heritage.
@@MrSeedi76that was not a thing. A requirement for becoming a U.S. citizen used to be being white.
I get the feeling that you didn't do much research on this subject.
Its insane to say anything is wrong with what has been for thousands of years and blessed by God in scripture. And continues to be absolutely fine for all nations outside the west.
When exactly did God bless nationalism?
@@TheOtherCaleb Whay do you think the promised land and the whole sentiment around it is? You know, a land with an indigenous people God said it is right for his chosen to take for themselves.
@@andrewbenner6349 What does that have to do with anything you said? Divinely chosen land has nothing to do with your position.
@TheOtherCaleb We are His Chosen Israel. Our Father wants every good thing for us. For example, All the things that America wants for Israel, it should want for itself as well. It's a comment section, try to see the forest and not just the flaws in the bark of a one inch section of one tree.
@@andrewbenner6349 I really don’t see how us being God’s chosen people has anything to do with nationalism.
Whenever I run into someone afraid of Christian Nationalism, the first thing I do is ask what they even mean by that.
Then I ask what they think of Atheist Globalism.
I think you’re a good man Pastor! Keep up the good work formThe Lord!
As a Christian (not Lutheran) i have such an inclination towards having all of God's law govern politics. What else could be better? I also understand that if Torah didnt make people obey, how could any other law?
Where to draw the line of punishing rebellion against God's law seems to be where i as a Christian think about Christ in nationalism. I wouldn't even know where else to start.
Help me out if you have any other kind of distinctions or direction
We could create a huge system for enforcing morality, but even if we had good intentions, what would happen? Power hungry people would seize power and/or kill us and then use that system to establish a state religion. Nationalism seems opposed to socialism now, but both lead down the same road of 20th century horrors.
The law ought to be very simple: don't hurt people and don't take their stuff. What we need to work out is who counts as a person (it's all human beings).
On what basis should we not hurt people?@@sincerelysarcastic4400
Worry about apologetics before forcing Christian law on everyone. Also, why did Jesus never show concern about the supposed priority of setting up a religious state? Curious.
@@sincerelysarcastic4400Nationalism and socialism, funny enough, have usually gone hand in hand throughout history. Many laymen conservatives are unaware of that fact.
Since everyone seems to define "God's law" quite differently, my first question would be - what do you think is "God's law" and which laws are Christians even supposed to follow? Honestly I rarely see Christians online who can answer that question according to the new testament. Especially since the new testament claims, if you think you need to follow old testament law, you need to follow all of it. All of the 613 rules.
The only "law" Christians are supposed to follow is to love each other. That's it. And a small part of what is called "the noahide laws". That's no basis for establishing "God's law" in a country.
And especially when I see how the Christian right in the US negates the social aspect of Jesus's teachings, I very much have doubts that a country that enforces "God's law" will ever exist in a way that's true to the teachings of Jesus. Just my 2 cts.
We are not called to establish God's law, we are supposed to:
This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
John:15:12
By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
John:13:35
Jordan, you should do a video on the particular claims made by the two men. This will help move the dialogue along
Torba and Wolfe?
@@DrJordanBCooper yes. It would help others to understand the substance of the disagreement.
@@jdc9258 I'm much more interested in providing a positive way forward within the boundaries of Lutheran theology and social ethics than in giving critique.
@@DrJordanBCooper I wasn't meaning a critique. A compare and contrast between the two areas in Christendom would be helpful for those who don't understand the background or context. Otherwise, it's fruitless even to bring up the men's names
Thank you for the video!
I hear and read the term "Christian Nationalism" in both regular media and social media all the time, but I don't recall ever hearing anyone I know ever use the term, let alone describe themselves as such.
It’s a dichotomy and I don’t know if there is a solution. On the one hand, the U.S. was designed to not have a state religion as every European state did. On the other hand, Western civilization norms are based on Christian principles (although the progressives will deny this) - from abolishing slavery to treating women equally under the law with men. Quite frankly, while their methods are not right, many of the so-called Christian Nationalists simply want us to not slip back into paganism, which is where the left wants to take us.
Or maybe the religious right wants a religious dictatorship like Franscisco Franco in 1930s Spain. All those fascist axis regimes were married to a dominant church. As in Putins Russia yoday.
@@ka9fon No, definitely not. That sort of authoritarian is distinctly leftist and opposed to Biblical civil law. The system set up under Moses is very decentralized, with only a high judge to settle more national disputes. Even appointing a king explicitly went against the Law as originally set up.
But the left tries to say that the right wanting to enforce laws against murder instead of releasing them with no bail is somehow "authoritarian" while clamping down on the free speech of people and forcing people to approve of whatever morals they made up this week. It is hypocritical to the max, and that "christians" even play along with it shows that they reject Christ as king and worship Caesar.
Good commentary on the subject
Wonder why you haven't been invited onto Phil Vischer's show yet. I would listen to that.
I would be shocked if that happened, frankly.
Great stuff Jordan.
It pains me to see that LCMS does not have documents that clarify these issues, having pastors and lay people who believe and teach them publicly.
how about debating James Lindsay on this subject?
Debate what exactly?
They really agree about far more than they disagree on this subject, I think.
From what I have and heard I don’t think that Christian Nationalism is entirely based on name-calling from the Left or other groups. There are concerns about whether Social Conservatives are being heard in today’s media. There is an appeal to upholding institutions, as your channel has supported. There is the feeling, or outright proof that Big Tech or Big Business has allied against Christian beliefs or moral practices. I am not a Christian Nationalist. I believe Christians still need to act within political coalitions within this country.
I think your beard grew roughly an inch during this filming ❤
Good talk lord bless Y'alls day
Thank you for sharing this. This is some very thoughtful information. Hope This helps the algorithm
Thanks. From a never Trumper who hasnt voted for democrats either
On the subject of male vs. female performance, I recall that when I went to my city's unemployment centre there was the main job-finding plan that was aimed at everyone below 30, but above that age only to "disadvantaged minorites" like women. Thankfully I passed because I'm under 30, but if I had been your age, Dr Cooper, my country would've basically given me a huge "F you" while helping a woman of the same age . . .
GREAT VIDEO!!!!!
It has been my experience (especially throughout the pandy) that these kinds of conversations are best in person, not on social media. And it is 100% necessary to define each term used. I’ve seen soooo many people argue all using the same terms but meaning entirely different things. Very frustrating to witness, and especially to take part in and have people take everything you say wrong.
Yeah, I think that's right. Real interaction is a far better way to address issues like this than lobbing bombs on Twitter.
Excellent points here. It's also critical to put judgment aside. We aren't trying to invalidate the point by attacking the one making it as that is a fallacy. It is also impossible to do on social media where all intellectual pursuit goes to die.
15:28 Should the state punish theft?
I appreciate
Excellent!
God's word is full of explicit instruction for how to navigate family life and church life, but is practically silent on how to navigate government life, besides mere submission. Though it is ordained by God, scripture does seem to suggest that government is at best a secondary consideration for the follower of Jesus Christ. Government is government, it varies from place to place. We wrestle not with flesh and blood, seems to me, to be the most telling sentiment concerning this issue. Engage with the state as per what is appropriate for the context.
Way to miss the point - stop defending your faith & consider the (very non-christian) fear & aggression being stirred up. Wake Up.
Race aside, certain cultures are definitely better and worse than others. I come from a country where 50% of all immigrants are from on specific place. After 8 years our country is measurably lower in every aspect. Our wages were driven down because this group will work for under the legal amount, our laws aren’t applied fairly and this group gets special treatment. To a lot of people it is hard to separate peoples race and culture. So when people start to dislike the culture that injected itself into my country, they often link the race as well.
Wages aren't driven down by immigrants but by politicians and businesses. And there are quite a few jobs that seem "too low" for certain people. I know because I worked a lot of those jobs 😂.
But it's a clever trick of politicians to play us against each other so we don't see how the true problem is that worldwide the upper 1 percent owns about half of the wealth. But do I hear anyone, either in the US or Europe, who says we need to raise taxes for the super rich? Nope. People still believe in "trickle down economics" which has been utterly debunked.
The specific group of people being let in are literally accepting contracts that are lower that the legal wages, which means other companies hire them under the same illegal law wage contracts and don’t hire the people already in my country at the legal wage. Immigrants certainly do lower the wages when they are told they can bring their families over if they help do work for less and undermine the legal pay. All of this is of course officiated by my government who is forming an aristocracy with this certain group. @@MrSeedi76
A lot of high context subtweeting here. Kind of hard to understand what you are talking about, if you don't give quotes and examples - especially for us non-Americans. I consider myself to be
a nationalist and a christian. A historically completely uncomplicated position to take - country, folk and God, simple as. But I do agree that "Christian Nationalism" in the modern american context is very vague. It also feels a bit like an OP to to be honest; rallying people aorund a vague concept, and fill it with meaning later.
I get it. I'm jumping into the middle of a conversation here. I wasn't going to make an hour long video on the topic.
Well presented. This is a breath of fresh air and reason in an unstable time.
Nationalism, according to the dictionary, is "the belief that a particular culture or ethnic group constitutes a distinct people deserving of political self determination". It's really a question of who rules. Anti nationalists, like this guy, don't believe in self government. Scripture describes rule by foreigners as a punishment or and embarrassment, so no person can hold to scripture and not be a Christian nationalist.
I agree.
The only point against us that people want to mix in chauvinism, which is something no Christian nationalist has proposed, as far as I can see it.
@@willhelmi2095 interesting
Chauvinism (/ˈʃoʊvɪnɪzəm/ SHOH-vih-nih-zəm) is the unreasonable belief in the superiority or dominance of one's own group or people, who are seen as strong and virtuous, while others are considered weak, unworthy, or inferior.
If someone believes Christian morals to be "unreasonable", sounds like a genetic anti Christian position.
Sir, that's not how nationalism is generally used in these conversations. To say that I think we should have foreign rulers controlling us is bizarre. And is not what anyone is talking about in this conversation.
@@DrJordanBCooper if you, yourself, reject the dictionary then you are as much of the problem as anyone else. The dictionary definition is precisely what people were using to discuss nationalism before the language was corrupted. I highly suggest returning to a sane debate.
@@ZorligI think the problem is not nationalism but the idea that politicians can enforce a definition of what it means to be Christian. So far, I never even saw an evangelical or fundamentalist online who could answer the question which laws from the old testament people are supposed to follow who are followers of Christ and not Jewish.
All I see are debates about things people believe are somehow in the Bible that clearly aren't. Like "family values" even though Jesus said:
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Matthew:10:35
And
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Matthew:10:37
Or people who somehow think the Bible has anything to say about homosexuality even though that is a concept of the 19th century utterly unfamiliar to the writers of the new testament.
Or people who argue, "social justice" is somehow bad, even though Jesus told us to see Him in the marginalized, even in people in prison. All these things seem to be absent in the modern day debate. I see most often that people use certain cherry picked verses from the Bible to bolster up their views that they already had. Not the other way around, to challenge their own view and being under the judgment of holy scripture.
Because we are ALL deserving of God's wrath. Only the grace of God in Jesus and his sacrifice is what keeps us from this wrath.
Thank you, Dr Cooper! I heartily agree with your analysis on the Christian political discourse. It is human nature to use our political opinions to justify our souls. We might expect nonbelievers to do that, but I fear many of us Christians are now doing the same.
Nobody on the left is defining terms? What exactly are you reading? Are you generalizing based on Twitter comments? I can give you a robust definition and history, it just doesn't fit in a tweet.
In the published articles I have read (many of which purport to be scholarly) on the topic, I see a lot of citations of other critics on left to define terms, but not much interaction at all with any literature that defends the view they claim to be critiquing. Further, the definitions that are given are either extremely vague, or are presented in a way that the definition itself is assuming what has to be proven.
Great conversation!! Love your cultural content!
Young Anglican did a great video on Christian Nationalism.
What the Church--and specifically the United States Church--actually needs right now is somebody to stand up and clearly explain what the Christian's role is in relationship to the State, defining what is and is not biblical in relation to the church's relationship to the State. Getting back to a robust biblical eschatology is key in this as well
Neither extreme in this debate is very rational right now. Wolfe and his followers have used rhetoric that smacks of Kinism, and as for Phil Vischer, something caused him to do a theological flip to modernism a few years ago (I couldn't tell you what). It's like watching the Hatfields and McCoys shoot it out and not really rooting for either side to win. Both sides in this really are engaged in the idolatry of politics.
My hope is that some future content from Just and Sinner, and some republications of older material, will provide an alternative framework.
@@DrJordanBCooper That would be a great asset, not to mention being well-received.
People can’t even agree on what the heck Christian Nationalism even means…
The question of “what aspects of God’s law should inform a Christian politics” is THE central question.
It denies the “neutrality”that secularism on its way to paganism promotes. Which is a heretical form of the two kingdoms theology, that makes the state into god (a false liberalism).
But it also resists the totalitarian use of the moral law and a confusion of the institutions of Church and State (a false conservatism).
We don’t realize that our constitutional system was a liberal form of Christian establishment. That is, it denied that the state was God via the first amendment and that worked because culturally some type of Jesus was God.
And informally one could not practice human sacrifice because of Christian morality. This morality was the lens used to hide a certain kind of Christian establishment which was compatible with a certain non-establishment interpretation of the first amendment.
But the moral culture which upheld that system is being strained by the new identity morality and sexual anthropology which conflicts with the old order and so it’s exposing the hidden Christian norms that underwrote the old constitutional order. As a result the new sexual rights are in direct conflict with the first amendment. And we are being forced to decide between them.
The moral questions of our society are a proxy for the ancient question of what God/god rules our social order.
That is what is happening in my perspective as a lawyer and student of history.
15:28 What is a woman. Define your terms.
Thanks, Dr. Cooper! A lot to consider here. This helped me.
Thankyou for your sensible take things.
Yours sincerely, a white-passing Trump voter.
Logically, Satanism must be allowed according to pluralism.
Something tells me you don’t know anything about satanism, and also yes, it should
@@MrWill9894 Something tells me that you don't know anything about Satanism.
@@MrWill9894 No, the original founders never intended to allow Satanism.
Black nationalism is ok?
I think that is the hard balancing act is for me: trying to discern civic duty of Christians and those who just want the government to legislate as a church upon everyone. They have some clear overlaps and clear differences. While I am more bias against government and other man made institutions, I can't deny that others feel differently. But those who insist that use God's Law as a prosperity gospel for nations, then I think that's where I say that's a heresy of action. I can't judge their salvation, maybe understand their "fruits" are rotten, but it's hard to converse with those who believe a top down revival of Judeo-Chrisitain values is the correct source of "life in Christ" or of governence... It then sounds like I hate the law but I think it's a misuse of the law and then I'm stuck all over again. Some see it as an opportunity to witness, others as a place of security against spiritual forces, and I am left wondering "what do they think sin is?"
Thank you for the video, it is very well grounded and is an amazing reminder of how we are to hear everyone and I needed to hear that.
All nations of people are to be taught Christianity and taught to obey Christ
Thats missionary work. Whosoever will. Only those born again will follow Christ. It's not about worldly politics.
@@ka9fon but for all those in authority since God wills all men to be saved like Timothy says? Who else is he speaking about other than rulers of governments and nations? And Christ says to teach the nations to obey Christ. Take heed oh kings of the earth and kiss the Son?
@Mason_O Psalm 2 is a Messianic psalm talking place when Christ comes in glory to destroy Satan and set up His earthly kingdom. Now the God of this world Satan runs it. And our mission is to teach the world. The kingdom of God is in our hearts.
@@ka9fon why are we to think ps 2 is to be understood that way? It seems like the New Testament authors never used it that way in their quotations? And doesn’t the Lutheran in this video not believe in an earthly reign?
@Mason_O it's called rightly dividing the Word and aware of dispensations. Israel will be God's earthly people while the church will be His heavenly. As a baptist, I believe this place is not my home. I'm just passing through. There will be Christ's earthly kingdom after He subdues His enemies at His coming. But first the Great Tribulation must happen.
Didn’t Christian nationalism arose as an answer to anti American anti Christian bias?
How would you act if you were a Christian in the underground church in Iran? I am willing to bet your ideals of Christian Nationalism would be thrown out the window. The point is this: as a Christian, you are to engage in civic life as is appropriate for that context. That may mean supporting godly rulers and rules that align with God's word. In another context it may mean navigating a Muslim theocracy without worshipping false gods. There is no context I can think of in which the Christian, in engaging with civil life, would be compelled to support the ushering in of an authoritarian state that undermines the core values of that society, so as to impose biblical values on an unbelieving population.
I’d wager the primary difference between you and many eventual Trump voters is willingness to participate in the two party system. Everyone has a line somewhere in which they’d vote outside its confines.
Either that or you’re a filthy libertarian! (Joking)
*yells*
Dear Dr. Cooper,
Thank you for comments. There are two things that I would like to highlight regarding Christian Nationalism. First, discussing what Christian Nationalism means as an idea is besides the point when the target is how this name gets attached to real social movements and what effects these have in the real world. It doesn’t really matter whether there is some ‘theorist’ (for lack of a better term) who articulates a beneficial theory of how state and church should mutually interact when you have groups ready to do violence and leaders rallying people to the banner of Christian Nationalism as they inderstand it (with some even calling for Trump to step in as a Protestant Franco). At that point, the locus of gravity just shifts towards what is gaining most traction (whether real or amplified by the media, to which I must admit, as an overseas observer, I cannot judge reliably how much of it is real or amplified). It wouldn’t surprise me if many people will simply opt to change the name/tag for their conception to suitably distance themselves from the other thing, just like social democracy cut itself off from socialism and communism to pursue reform rather than revolution.
This brings me to my second point. I don’t want to appear smug or condescending in writing this, but there seems to be a parallel here in how Americans generally have painted any attempt to introduce or even maintain anything like a welfare state as a slippery slope towards a socialist hellscape. I know the social and cultural issues are of more concern to you, but the fact remains that the most violent resistance has always been towards the economic settlement that the New Deal brought and it has always been opposed in the name of protecting the power of elites and those who benefit from it, regardless of what real benefits a functioning welfare state has for the vast majority of people (and this is empirically verifiable). This may be an opportunity to reassess whether we Christians generally have been appropriately charitable in approaching what liberals think is in the pursuit of the commonweal and whether we are doing our best to prevent spiritual snakeoil from circulating in our communities.
Merry Christmas
I’m glad somebody’s saying what I’ve been thinking!
There's nothing wrong with "ethno" nationalism. Nationhood was always tied to the race of people, the Romans knew this, the Israelites, and the Greeks.
I attend my Lutheran church, and we pray for the other churches within our nation, but I find it so Ironic they are "Korean Lutheran Church" and the "Somalian Lutheran Church" which are tied directly to ethnicity, and no one bats an eye. But suddenly young white men are not hating themselves and actually loving their own people who are under attack is somehow now "demonic". Seriously Dr. Jordan, that's just you being frankly anti-white. It is natural, normal, and good to feel a kinship of love of your own race, which Saint Paul expressed greatly in Romans 9:3. I too, love my race that I would be cut off from Christ for the sake of their salvation.
The Western Classical notion of identity is from Herodotus’ Histories, written in the 5th century B.C. It’s from Herodotus that we have the story of the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae, told in the broader context of the entire Hellenic world’s successful resistance to the Persian invasion. In order to do that, the Spartans (Dorians) and Athenians (Ionians) had to overcome their differences and join together to defend what was common to both of them as Greeks. In Book VIII, there is a scene in which the Athenians explain to a messenger from Sparta why the Spartans should side with the Athenians and not the Persians.
“First and foremost of these is that the images and buildings of the gods have been burned and demolished, so that we are bound by necessity to exact the greatest revenge on the man who performed these deeds, rather than to make agreements with him. And second, it would not be fitting for the Athenians to prove traitors to the Greek people, with whom we are united in sharing the same kinship and language, with whom we have established shrines and conduct sacrifices to the gods together, and with whom we also share the same way of life.” (VIII:144.2)
In this passage are no less than four criteria for being a Greek, or Hellene: common religion, common blood, common language, and common customs. That was 2500 years ago, this is still the best and most comprehensive working definition of national identity. This is because one can extract it from this particular situation in ancient history and apply it to virtually anywhere in the world at any time. The word the bible uses for "nation" is "ethnos" which is race, which is defined as:
Common religion, Common blood, Common language, and Common customs.
This is note hateful, this is simply the truth. Especially when Europeans are under unparalleled attacks and replacement migration takes over the home countries.
Yes. I, as a German myself, want to add that it is obviously true that neither Luther nor any Lutheran Theologian up to maybe 1960 would have supported the current replacement of the German population.
That we even have this discussion is ridiculous.
@@willhelmi2095 The Athenian's in around 400 BC had literal blood and soil laws that granted citizenship based on if you had Athenian blood.
And Tactius wrote about the Germans in 98 AD:
"The Germans themselves I should regard as aboriginal, and not mixed at all with other races through immigration or intercourse. For in former times, it was not by land but on shipboard that those who sought to emigrate would arrive; and the boundless and, so to speak, hostile ocean beyond us, is seldom entered by a sail from our world."
and Airstotle:
“[the] parent seems by nature to feel [philia] for offspring and offspring for parent … [philia] is felt mutually by members of the same race”
philia’ (φιλία, roughly translating to “brotherly love”)
Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle (340 BC)
We see this all throughout history for thousands of years UNTIL the last 40-80 years where that's been flipped on it's head. These people from over a thousand years ago understand race better then most modern people do.
And yes, I hate to see the demographic replacement in Germany, my grandmother is from Rugen, and it is terrible to see what is happening in your country. In 400 years, all Germans will be either mixed or gone as a coherent people. Not only that, Immigrants cost Germany 15.4 billion euros in welfare per year
"The number of German recipients of welfare benefits has halved since 2010, while the number of foreign nationals receiving social assistance payments has doubled, government data has revealed."
"It revealed that the number of German recipients of the citizens’ allowance had almost halved from 5.2 million in 2020 to 2.9 million as of February 2023. In contrast, foreign recipients of social benefits had doubled from 1.3 million people in 2010 to 2.6 million currently."
The West, which is white and always has been, is under attack and demographic replacement. Whites must become racially conscious again in order to secure their racial interest just as every other race does.
@@FortniteBlaster2What a terrible, unbiblical way of thinking.
Where did Christ hint at this notion of strict national identity?
Saint Paul did in Romans 9:3. You are just anti-white and a modernist. @@TheOtherCaleb
I am a christian nationalist in the way that I think of myself as a citizen of the Kingdom of God and that secular authorities should have christian morality. And am not a christian nationalist in the way that I don't believe that the state has authority over the church and that the church should not participate in the sinful business of politics. Referring to the Barmen declaration of 1934.🏵❤️✝️
Unfortunately, I think the 'Christian Nationalist' label is generally a slander against Christians. It's being promoted by secularists and heretical churches to demonize bible adherent Christians who love Jesus and have a great appreciation for allowing our country to exist. I agree that theocracy is wrong.
I know I get nervous when the term nationalism is used. As a racial minority thing don’t seem to work out for us in these movements. But good video.
Yeah, often nationalism means "ethno-nationalism" (though not always).
What is wrong with you? Why do you think liberal’s would prefer your political views, and if they wouldn’t then what do you have to gain by defining Christian policies in a different way?
It seems to me where the individual Christian stands on how the State should influence/maintain/uphold social and cultural norms is directly related to their eschatological views. Premils tend to lean toward adherence to the historic 2 kingdom theology whereas Postmils and Amils think the Church should have more influence on the Civil Magistrate.
Tornadoes in Twister and Taz are trying to find why I would even have a pulse when people find me so boring. They don't chew gum where I walk with my own feet.
Historically, Lutheranism IS "christian nationalism".
I'd like to see a supplement to this vide addressing this week's controversy involving Heidi Przybyla.
As far as I understand it, as someone outside the US whose mothertongue is not english, the Christian Nationalism that is problematic is the type that would lead to a opressive theocracy a la Iran. Maybe the negative reaction is as harsh as it is because of the fear of it leading to sth akin to that, esp. looking at how non muslims are treated there.
I have a problem with overblown Nationalism of anykind. But then again I already get uncomfortable reading/hearing about the pledge of allegiance in schools. We had severe problems with nationalism in the past. Didnt end well for us.
Trump is not left at all. He's an opportunist, capitalist, incompetent at running your country and a criminal. I don't understand how one can support that carricature of a rich man. As far as I can see he has no concern for the common man at all. Also the January 6 storming of the capitol to interrupt the peaceful constitutional transfer of power from one elected head of state to his elected successor? Not exactly a glowing reference.
Women are not doing so much better in terms of getting paid the same for the same job. The problems with getting back into a job after having a child are still very much mesurable in most countries in the world (sweden maybe not as much, but there both parents are much more encouraged to take time off with the new born afaik). From what I can tell women are doing better mental health wise, cause they are not discouraged from talking about and looking at their mental problems by society as much.
Since I support social wellfare, more state regulated labour laws that actually benefit the employee, healthcare that your average citizen can affort and that the state should look out for its citizens not its cooporations I guess in american terms I'd be quite left.
If a church body wants to influence politics? Make a party and run for elections. But then again that works better in a political landscape that is not a 2 party system. Encourage your members to take up Public Offices. maybe have contracts with the churches so that the finance ministry handels the organisational side of tithing via the tax offices. Have religious education of your predominant denominations available as electives in school. That I wouldn't bat an eyelid on.
Economic issues are things I leave to the economists. Beyond my calling.
@@DrJordanBCooper one big concern on my part concerning Christian Nationalism is with the Nationalism of it all: Who is the Nation in that Nationalism? once those that want a Christian Nationstate are in power, which Christianity will it be? will I still be free to practice in the Lutheran tradition? Will Infant Baptism still be allowed? Or will it be a complete abomination a la the Handmaids Tale? Who defines who is part of that Christian nation? How narrow are those definitions? What happens to those on the outside of the definition?
People have killed others for not being "the right kind of Christian" way more than once throughout history.
Nothing against a Christian going into office making policy according to his believes. If he or she is elected and doesn't persecute people. But I wouldnt class wanting more Christians in Government as Christian Nationalism.
Wow! It’s almost like circumstances are causing God to put hooks in your mouth to pull you out of your ivory tower and force you to address the world the rest of us have to live in. Not a bad start! Who knows, if this trend continues, I may have to repent of charactering you as a “coward!” I’m not holding my breath just yet though.
If you don't like me or what I do, you could just...not watch.
@@DrJordanBCooper I usually don’t anymore but this one caught my eye. I don’t go looking for it but it still crosses my channel as though I were still subscribed. Go figure.🤷♂️BTW, It’s not a matter of not liking you. It’s that you could be more.
You should sue your seminary because clearly you never should have graduated.
I wish there were more Lutherans in Minnesota
Do you support immoral laws?
Bo and Luke are about Daddy Day Care. Coy and Vance are about Norbert. Either Chicago or Burlesque. People go back to their entertainment-related trenches and have probably left me alone some time ago. Peace at last.
I graduated high school in 1987, the year of Richard Ramirez, the California Nightstalker. There is a lot of nothing of my life. He died in San Quentin, having more attention than I seem to deserve. I can let him have his legacy and his attention. There are those who think San Quentin has true gravity because they have their weights in the right places, their cells.
Good uncommon sense!
The odd thing about American nationalism is a lot of the founders themselves weren't nationalists and for the most part (especially devout Christians like Roger Sherman and John Dickinson) were extremely locally minded men who saw nationalism as a threat to that
Excellent video!
They understood nationhood was tied to race, read the Naturalization act of 1790.
@@FortniteBlaster2 NH, MA, NJ, NY, and NC all had African American citizens at the time of the constitution's ratification
@@bradleymarshall5489Whataboutism fallacy. The nations the founders intended by the law limited naturalization to "free White person(s) ... of good character" and also a religious people.
@@FortniteBlaster2 ya but you're kind of presupposing that the founders saw the US as a nation to a degree. Sure they wanted more immigrants to be of that type but there were already pre-existing communities that varied greatly with Quakers working closely with Native Americans and New England towns having black citizens. The law you're referring to wasn't intended to destroy that
I never said it was intending to destroy that which you mentioned, I am saying the founders of America wanted a white and religious country, of which it was 90% white until the 1960 immigration which was put together by people who come from Palestine@@bradleymarshall5489
Appreciate your views and video. I will vote for Trump because I truly believe he's best for this country now but I would not consider myself a Christian Nationalist. Thank God for free speech. I'm 71 and white which is a fact not necessarily a reason.
I'm certainly not telling you not to do so!
The problem with Christian nationalism is that it inherently implies that everyone who's not a Christian is somehow less of an American than those who are. Christian nationalism says that Christians should take the lead and everyone else should just shut up and deal with it, whether it conflicts with their own personal values or not.
The term is not easily defineable or represented positively. It's a useless categorization, except for political polling because most self-identified christian nationslists (no matter the definition given) will vote a certain way.
But, the term should be punted to the stratosphere and forgotten about
None
You should definitely be voting for Trump. TDS is horrid path of blind hatred.
I am a citizen and I don’t want to live under the religious beliefs of my fellow citizens. I am free to oppose them for any reason that I choose including the fact that Jesus doesn’t want me for a sunbeam.
I agree with you.
“Christian Nationalism” has no real definition. If you mean Christian who holds traditional American values like constitutional rights, small government, low taxes, sure, I’m also then a Christian who likes coffee and am a Christian hunter, a Christian wearer of Dickies brand work pants.
If you mean the type that want racial segregation that’s gross and unbiblical (Col 3:11) which is actually part of my issue with a church having a “black caucus.”
You are correct as to the cause of the anger we see. Beyond what you said we can’t as a society give one child an awesome coat and send the others out to work the field (Genesis 37:3-4)
and not expect anger and ultimately violence.
Also I struggle with voting for any candidate that supports any abortion or sexual immorality which really leaves me politically homeless these days because the lesser of two evils is still an evil. Sure I think the Democrats are openly hostile towards Biblical Christianity, but “Republicans” are apathetic and just Democrat lite making them only marginally better.
If Trump was at least fully pro-life at least that would be one thing, but since he waffles on that even what’s the point.
It’s like voting between Jeraboam non of Nebat, and Jehoram. I mean we don’t even have a Mannaseh who might repent when things get too bad.
Are you an American citizen?
theocratic monarchy is the only form of governance put forth in scripture
No, God told the Israelites that their desire for a king will be something they regret. There was a form of government before that whih was NOT a theocratic monarchy and unless yo uthink it was an illegitimate government... Also, St. Paul was cool with the government of Nero, definitely not a theocratic monarchy on the OT model. If it was truly God's command to have a theocratic monarchy I guess you are forced to say St. Paul got that one wrong. St. Paul also said "All authority is instituted by God..." So I am just not seeing what you say in Scripture -- I see a variety of governing authorities ALL OF WHICH have some legitimacy in Scripture.
@@ebreissIn the same passage Paul notes that this authority punishes evil. I'm pretty sure that a country with thousands of legal (!) abortions per year is not included.
You clearly haven’t read scripture 😂
Some forms of governance are more propitious than others. None is above the Order of the Holy Spirit. Families, clans and kinships outlast republics, federations and corporations.
Nationalism? You don't believe that God judges nations?
My brother, do you know what nationalism is?
That is not how the term nationalism is generally used at all.
@@TheOtherCaleb Matthew 28:19-20 (KJV 1900): Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
@DrJordanBCooper The Christian understands that nations as well as individuals are accountable to God. It follows from this principle that individual Christians, as well as churches and denominations, are accountable to God. A further implication from this is that Christians and churches have a moral obligation to call the civil magistrates to be accountable for biblical morality. The 2 kingdoms theology was never intended to excuse our failure to prophetically challenge immorality in the government and the civil rule of law.
If Christian Nationalism has a purpose then it is to have people identify as Christian nationalists. In other words, if you buy into what the leaders of the movement are saying then you support them and those values and beliefs. The movement may not come right out and say that but ostensibly Christian Nationalism is a movement and like any movement it needs followers. There is only one problem. You have to believe what they tell you to believe. So basically, it strips away religious freedom even if you are a Christian.
No Thank you