The Perils and Promises of Christian Nationalism | Tom Ascol
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ก.พ. 2023
- This talk was given by Dr. Tom Ascol on January 18, 2023 at the IOPT Pre-conference on Christian Nationalism. preceding the 2023 National Founders Conference in Southwest Florida.
All Founders Ministries resources are copyrighted and any use and distribution must be approved by Founders Ministries.
Join us for our 2024 National Founders Conference: Remember Jesus Christ | founders.org/conference/
The Institute of Public Theology: www.instituteofpublictheology...
Become a part of the F.A.M. press.founders.org/fam/
Wield The Sword: founders.org/wieldthesword/
Follow Founders Ministries:
Website: founders.org
Facebook: / foundersmin
Twitter: / foundersmin
Instagram: / foundersministries
Great talk. To summarize:
1) God is above all, and we need to obey Him over man
2) The USA could only have been founded from a Biblical worldview, and moving away from this is self-destructive.
3) Realizing this, loving your neighbor is to WORK (vote, debate, run for office, evangelize, disobey if needed, self-sacrifice, stop being lazy) to keep/protect Biblical values in our laws/society.
4) Do not be ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation.
#2 with the qualification that the biblical worldview was to COUNTER those who would oppress Christians by unifying church and state. Our country was founded by men and women fleeing the religious persecution of the form of government that mixed state and the Catholic church, which is why separation of church and state is so important even today. Unless you want your family ruled by Shariah (for example), Christian Nationalists are only paving the way for something regressively worse and knocking us back centuries in terms of freedom to live as free Christians.
This is a scholarly work. He is the true SBC president. God bless you, Tom, for speaking the truth and very respectfully. It's a touchy subject. Most mature message of Christian Nationalism yet. I miss your church, too.
This was extremely helpful brother
Thank-you, Tom Ascol, for this fine sermon..timely and true..God richly bless you. I was getting bogged down on this topic. Thank-you for helping me out of the bog.
This was not at all a sermon. No exposition of Scripture. He quoted man A LOT though.
Great talk! Thank you for tackling this issue.
One of my favorite contemporary pastors/theologians.
What a great message and guidance on what Christian nationalism is and what it isn’t and what a Christ follower’s stance should be!🙏🏻
Excellent
Perfect and well said.
Excellent!
Totally agree
That was about as reasonable and biblical a treatment of the subject, as we're ever likely to hear. In fact, I'll go on record as saying that one would have to bastardize and misrepresent what Mr Ascol said in order to take issue with hit, let alone horribilize it, as several folks have attempted to do. And yes, I contend that their reactions and critiques were misguided, emotional, or flat out slanderous. I find it truly stunning how many Christians seem to not want a nation whose God is Yahweh.
A better name might be Biblical Civics
"Protestant Christian Nationalism"
Well done. Much to think about.
Well timed. The truly heinous stuff didnt show up until about 25 minutes I'd love to know who wrote this.
Starting at about 33:25 until about 33:55, you'll see a massive shifting of the goalposts.
Common law structurally requires Christianity.
The concept is simple. In order to have checks and balances, there must be a separation of powers into different bodies. The Church and state are separated in order to provide checks and balances via common law structure. State law determines which acts are illegal, but Church doctrine determines which acts are guilty.
A defendant is free to choose between a bench trial or a trial by jury. In a bench trial the laws of the state will be applied without regard to morality. In a trial by jury the jurors are sworn to give a true verdict. Can a state law convert an intrinsically innocent act into a guilty act?
Please note Roman's chapter 13. Paul assumes this separation of powers because the passage becomes absurd if the authority wielding the sword against those who do evil is free to define evil as anything their political opponents are doing.
I’ve recently taken an interest in the history of English Common Law and English theology in general. Getting Blackstone’s Commentary is on my to do list.
From what I understand , English Common Law originally was based on the moral law and general principles from the Hebrew civil law. To me that sounds similar to people saying that they are a General Equity Theonomist. The founding fathers of course cited Deuteronomy more than other book to back up the principles and rules written into the US Constitution.
In a seminary class, I’m tasked to write a research paper on Charles Simeon. He wrote a famous commentary on the entire Bible for short called Horea Homietice. Anyways, his Romans 13:1-7 commentary of course demonstrates that God delegated authority to magistrates. But he is an Anglican. This is an Established Church and it was started in an era when there was no concept of separation of Church and State.
Our Constitution should be reinterpreted to where every citizen should be asked, “Which master will you serve: Christ, or the state?” then protect the inalienable right for all American citizens to choose, free of consequence. In today’s political climate where equity has replaced ‘equal justice under the law’, conservatives must redefine the parameters of conscientious objector status (“… a person who refuses to bear arms or serve in the military based on a matter of conscience… on moral, ethical, or religious grounds”) in response to the latest left-wing escalation of their war on the First Amendment. What’s important is overhauling our government into a system sensitive, under an American context, to the qualities of personalism, popularism, decentralizing federal power through subsidiarity, and affirming the validity and necessity of Christian religious inspiration for politics.
Government should therefore channel their resources to propagate Christianity socially, while wielding the levers of government power to reintegrate Christians into all spheres of public life and national politics after 60 years in exile, consistent with the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof… or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”). In no place in the Constitution does it say that the church should be denied access to the public forum because of its connection to the transcendent God.
It is all about definition, redefintion, interpretation and re interpretation. America should be a right wing Conservative Republican country. Conservatives should redefine words to fit their ideology😇😎
@@owlnyc666 No, America should be a Christian nation. The political right, conservatism, and the Republican party are not Christian. They are certainly more closely aligned with Christianity than other political views and parties, but the Republican party platform is not God's word, nor is everything that is considered conservative or on the political right based on or consistent with Scripture.
@@catfinity8799 No, I think America should be a Secular Country, A country that allows people to choose their religion or not to be religious. Whether to be Liberal Christian or Conservative Christian, I will agree with your interpretation of scripture. I do agree that the Republican party platform is not Biblical. My interpretation of scripture is that Jesus would be a Liberal and a Democrat. I am an Atheist.
Remember as you watch this...
No serious exposition of Scripture.
No "Thus says the Lord"
He mocked the idea of getting our thoughts from a politician (Boebert) then proceded to quote politician after politician positively.
Reading modern nation-states into Genesis 10 and 11, not to mention conflating this with the Bible “recognizing the legitimacy of nations with borders”, is an enormous leap requiring equal parts eisegesis and logical fallacy.
Vote. Which is a greater threat to the church and to society? Christian Nationalism? Or the loss of the Christian Nation?
So much dep and nuance given to Christian National. Your ideology has been on point with God. There is no need to confront those who fit the narrative. Take a look at your churches and your audience. Ask yourself, "Does look like heaven. Many can point but can't soul search. Grace is given and understanding given to the ideology you chose to give it to. Trump has proven that through many evangelicals. If you can rebuke crt and woke group, I believe you should with the same biblical truth rebuke Christian bad ideology. This reason is why your church audience looks the way it does.
I wonder, if Tom Ascol was to give this talk in Zambia or South Korea. How would you find Trump in that ? The point of Revelations in the ubiquity of all cultures in Heaven is not a prescription for proper church diversity. Rather, it is a recognition that Christ's work extends across all cultures and peoples. The reason his audience looks as it does is the same reason that African American churches are largely filled with black people. We tend to associate with those of similar cultures, even in churches. The belief that this is somehow intrinsically sinful is not found in Scripture. Forced diversity is a burden which is from man, not God.
@James Cook I believe this topic and messages were meant to address America. If he was addressing another country, it would come across differently. If you excuse sin for political reasons, it is wrong. To pretend evangelicals didn't brush his sin under the rug, for their gain would be a lie or denial. This is how I believe Christian National functions. This is how they treat American history and the reason for lack of nuance for crt that is given to Christian National.
Assuming a "Christian nation" cannot revolt against another "Christian nation"; and if America is a "Christian nation", then Great Britain must not have been a "Christian nation".
Seems to me a definition of "Christian nation" can (must?) be found by comparing America to Great Britain in 1776. Why, if the above assumptions are correct, a definition of "Christian nation" does not already exist, in the most unambiguous way, is interesting.
Friendly reply. I believe it is a false assumption. Two "perfect" Christian nations wouldn't have a revolt, but i.e. Britain could have been largely influenced by Christianity but in certain respects be acting (i.e. especially through parliament or the monarch) to a sufficient degree out of line with the heritage, and general and special revelation, that another Christian nation was compelled to revolt. There could likewise be imperfections in the revolting party/nation.
Perhaps it's analogous to say you could have an ugly church split ultimately result in two basically healthy, faithful churches, perhaps (hopefully) with one or both subsequently recognizing and repenting of wrongdoing that lead to or contributed to the split. Just a thought.
@@unexpectedTrajectory
Friendly reply. So a "less than perfect Christian nation" can revolt (i.e. wage war) and still be considered a "Christian nation"?
If a "more perfected Christian nation" arises, it can be compelled to revolt against the "less perfected Christian nation"?
Compelled by who/what? The teachings of Jesus or something else? If the former, can you please explain how Jesus' teachings would compel a "more perfect" nation of His followers to wage war against a "less perfect" nation of His followers? If the latter, how can a Christian be compelled by something other than Jesus' teachings?
If the LAW and MORALITY comes from GOD and further more we are all created equal.
No man or man created law should keep other man under oppression or under pressure under the law to create their fellow citizens into criminals.
That is BIBLICAL LAW.....how do I know?.....all you have to do is read the 10 Commandments.
It is pretty clear.
Maybe he should read Katherine Stewart's "The Power Worshippers" and it becomes really clear what individuals like me consider "Christian Nationalism."
Kindly briefly explain what you think "Christian Nationalism" means?
This man is a wolf in sheep's skins. Jesus Is King!
Discussing Christian Nationalism is a waste of time. It is clearly wrong however you define it. Just like Calvinism is clearly wrong however you define it.
We need to stay away from all labels except the label of Christian.
Your comment is a waste of time. Go kick rocks.
@@matthewmidea4754 🤣My thoughts exactly!
@mrnoedahl.
Just like motherhood, truck farming, and astronomy are wrong, no matter how you define them?
@@hanssvineklev648 I am talking within Christianity.
@@mrnoedahl. My point exactly. There are probably at least 17 variations of “Christian Nationalism.” Some of which you yourself could give whole-hearted commitment to. There are a good number of understandings (and misunderstandings) of Reformed thought, as well. Some of which you would find yourself nodding in agreement with.
I think a new approach is needed .how did Jesus handel situations for like women of well . Some officials woud say you sined and we will put you I jail till you wise up. Some of or officials and other countries go along with this strong arm driconing approach it's not Christian.
I am interested in what Ascol has to say, but Wolfe's book was a dumpster fire.
18:20-18:40 The definition of Christian Nationalism set forth by Pastor Aschol leaves too much room for subjective interpretation as to what must be objectively set down for that definition.
"What is meant by Christian Culture'?"
"What are Christian Norms'?"
If we judge the two above through the lenses within the mass populous of what counts as "Christian," then you end up with a largely woke and confused Christian culture with an ever moving moral compass and ever shifting goal posts.
If we judge what the Scriptures define as "Christian Norms," which is the objective truth we should have begun the definition as well as the discussion, then one of the first norms to be established for the Christian is the assertion of the abiding place and validity of the Moral Law of God for all ages as it is summarily comprehended in the 10 commandments.
Already with the above objective framework mentioned (ie- the Ten Commandments), I have already lost a large portion of what counts as "Christian" today within Evangelicalism, and sadly even among so called "conservative Evangelicalism."
I appreciate the conference and look forward to more dialogue concerning the subject!
Does a good job of warning against following men like David French, Russell Moore, Tim Keller. Why aren’t we warned to stay away from Stephen Wolfe (fitting last name)? Doesn’t matter what good points his book makes when we view the disgusting hateful things he promotes (Tom doesn’t declare support for him and the book but the tone is certainly different talking about it, and promotional for discussing certain aspects). There is a right way to practice Christian nationalism with a biblical lens but that guy and his book should be marked and avoided. See Kevin DeYoung’s review on it if you don’t believe me. Still love Tom Ascol but this part had me confused.
Kevin is quite woke on many things. His review has been reviewed by others as not being fair.
I don’t agree with that but if you want someone else, Neil Shenvi’s review is even more detailed and shows the mess with this. Having a centralized Christian “Prince” to guide everyone else (like a pope??), saying that nations should not have more than 1 or 2 ethnicities; and that spiritual unity is not enough for a church and there must be ethnic unity… riiight. This book is trash and has nothing good to ultimately offer and I’d say the same if someone was trying to defend “White Fragility” or some other garbage CRT book. Some people do take Christian Nationalism and make it their own critical race theory, and some do much better with it (as Tom explains in this message). Wolfe should be marked and avoided though
And it’s disgusting that Canon Press would put that book out there and stand by it. Again, it’s not Christian Nationalism I have a problem with (as long as it’s understood and done biblically), it’s that book and its author and Canon Press I have a problem with
@@manojlal8176I don’t think you’ve read the book. And I don’t think either of those “reviews” were done in good faith. One of Tom’s points in the talk was to get believers out of a Manichaean framework, and to analyze the ideas on their merits. You don’t have to agree with everything Stephen Wolfe put forth in the book. However, to claim the book is championing some WASP nationalism by means of violent revolution is incredibly misleading. It does no such thing. It simply asks the question in much of the same way Tom asks the question, By What Standard?
Wolfe says a mark of nationalism is that “each people group has a right to be for itself” (118), and that “no nation (properly conceived) is composed of two or more ethnicities” (135), and that our “instinct to conduct everyday life among similar people is natural, and being natural, it is for your good” (142), and that “to exclude an out-group is to recognize a universal good for man” (145), and that “spiritual unity is inadequate for formal ecclesial unity” (200), and that “the most suitable condition for a group of people to successfully pursue the complete good is one of cultural similarity” (201).
Again I stand with Tom and I think he did a good job handling this topic altogether. And Wolf’s work will continue to spread while many will continue to defend/explain every accusation away. Nothing new for Canon Press and Doug Wilson.
Mickey with all due respect , I don’t need to read “White Fragility” to know it’s wrong and dangerous for any church to adopt, no matter who in an evangelical circle would urge me to do so .
But, hey Soli Deo Gloria and I’m already over the discouragement I felt earlier.
Is Atheism and Secularism a "religion"? That all depends on which definition and meaning and how you want to use it. I could say that Christianity is not a " religion" but a way of life. It is not a religion but a personal relationship with Jesus. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's". "My Kingdom is NOT of this world but the next." Remember it was Jewish commoners, Jewish elite and Caesar that murdered Jesus. I'm told that if they did not then their would be no salvation. From my interpretation of New Testament, Jesus was a progressive and a social justice warrior. Also that the early, authentic, true Christians held all things "in comon".😎😇
If His Kingdom is not of this world, then how could he be a social justice warrior? The world is society outside of the Church. He never even taught anything related to social justice. The closest he got was when he taught about love, but his purpose was not to rectify societal injustices, but to give us the two most important maxims for our lives, superseding all else. Also, if he were a social justice warrior, why didn't he do anything about the Romans? That is because that is not his purpose at all. His purpose was to live as an example, to teach us, and, first and foremost, to die and be raised up.
In what way was Jesus progressive? What do you mean by that?
But there was no government dictating that everyone must live in a commune. Each and every one of them chose to share what they had. If not everyone chooses a communal society, it will not work. I'm not saying that it would be immoral for a government to force people to live under communism; I'm saying that it would be foolish for a government to attempt to do so.
@@catfinity8799 Just because he said that his kingdom was not of this world does not mean that he was not a social justice warrior. His criticism of the rich and advocacy of the poor is related to social justice. His criticism of how the Pharisees put the letter of the law over the spirit of the law is related to social justice.
@@owlnyc666actually his criticism of the pharisees was because they put the letter of the law over the God of the law and the reasons for the law. They were saying thou-shalt-not murder for the sake of saying thou.Shalt not murder and not for the sake of the fact that life is precious. They were saying keep the sabbath for the sake of the tradition of keeping the sabbath rather than understanding that rest is good and enjoying the fruits of your labor is good and taking time out to worship, God and remember that he is the reason we have all of these fruits of our labor.
@@stevenhenry1625 Was the law made for man or man made for the law? It seems to me that Conservatives think that man was made for the law. I pretty much agree with what you said except for "God and remember that he is the reason we have all of these fruits of our labor."
Try Christian nationalism. Try it. Ever heard of the "fuck around" saga? You'll be on the wrong end
Repent. Cursing is a sin.
And the false prophet emerges
The 1890’s are not the founders. The founders repeatedly said that in no way is this country a Christian nation. Treaty of Tripoli signed my John Quincy Adams and ratified by congress. The only mention of religion in the original constitution was to make sure there could be no test of religion for holding office. There is no way to uphold the constitution and push for Christian nationalism. This is a secular country and no religion has the right to interfere with the founding ideology of this country. You can’t be a patriot and a Christian nationalist because the constitution which is the fundamental foundation of the country says that this country is built on the freedom of religion and that includes all religious beliefs and non belief. You can have any religious belief you want or none at all. The foundations of Christian nationalism would destroy the freedoms of this country and that is what everyone who hates Christian nationalism is afraid of. This country is great due to freedom not Christianity.
The definition is quite simple really. Stop overthinking it. It’s simply two words.
1. Christian = Loves Jesus
2. Nationalist = Loves Country
So a “Christian Nationalist” in America makes sense since there’s nothing inherent about our country that opposes the Christian faith. I can already hear those who didn’t read that statement correctly (people who cannot think analytically) coming back with a plethora of examples of ungodly things in America that shouldn’t be supported. Again, to take that tact is to not think or not hear what I just said. Now, by saying it “makes sense in America” is to focus on the freedom we have to worship freely and to recognize the obvious blessings God has given to the USA over time. It does not make sense to say it in a country like China, for example, which as a country directly and diametrically opposes the Christian faith.