The Endorsers of “Christians Against Christian Nationalism” Speak Out

Christian nation

Many of you are familiar with “Christians Against Christian Nationalism.” I signed the statement and wrote about it here and here.

Over at The Anxious Bench, Chris Gehrz calls our attention to a podcast in which some of the endorsers of the statement talk about their opposition to Christian nationalism.  Here is a taste of Chris’s post:

But if any readers are skeptical about the statement, I’d encourage them first to read signer John Fea’s response to such concerns — and then to check out a new series of podcasts on Christian nationalism from the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.

In the first episode, BJC director and statement organizer Amanda Tyler alludes to “some troubling signs that Christian nationalism may be stuck at high tide.” While she’s bothered by violent attacks on individuals and houses of worship, she warns that “Christian nationalism also reveals itself in less dramatic ways” — e.g., as bills in state legislatures that would require biblical literacy courses in public schools and post the statement “In God we trust” in such public spaces. The Christians Against Christian Nationalism initiative, she explains, “is not in response to any one of these incidents, but rather as a way to counter what we view and perceive as a growing threat.”

In the remainder of that first episode, listeners hear from five of the initial twenty endorsers of the statement. It struck me that most of them not only talked about current events, but appealed to religious history. In different ways, all drew on their particular Christian movements’ historical experiences as religious minorities who learned that “[c]onflating religious authority with political authority is idolatrous and often leads to oppression of minority and other marginalized groups as well as the spiritual impoverishment of religion.”

Read the entire post here.

5 thoughts on “The Endorsers of “Christians Against Christian Nationalism” Speak Out

  1. Jeff,

    I am sure they also oppose drunk driving, littering, and behaving in a surly manner with the church sexton. Most of us won’t disagree with those positions. The key thing, however, to note is that these people are more concerned with their political agenda than with any genuine spiritual cause.



  2. John,

    That’s a good question. I suppose I might have some agreement with one or two of them on the unduly bloated military budget and the unnecessary loss of our blood and treasure overseas. With that being said, however, there is no way I would sign any sort of a document with these folks nor would I stand shoulder to shoulder with them in any cause. I’d sooner lock arms with an avowed atheist to advance a particular secular cause.

    I will not comment on any these twenty personally, but generally speaking it has been my observation that these sorts of individuals use religion and religious language simply to advance a political or social agenda. For me it would be improper to have anything to do with them. It would also not be good for my health since just being around blindly self-righteous people of this ilk might well drive my blood pressure up. “A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth the himself…” Prov. 27:12

    “But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or a covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat…….do not ye judge them that are within? I Cor. 5:11,12. Church discipline demands it. Paul is talking about certain very obvious sins of professing believers in this passage, but in other epistles he deals similarly with doctrinal error. The principle is still the same. Those on the moral or theological fringes of the confessing church are to be avoided because they discredit the truth of divine revelation. A broad path is not a broad heart but rather a broad conscience.


  3. John,
    What a questionable bunch of signatories comprise the initial twenty! I doubt that one of them would pass the doctrinal hurdles to gain tenure at Messiah. Joining ranks with these folks is not something the typical evangelical or religiously traditional Catholic would ever do. The twenty signatories are a Who’s Who of the theologically amorphous religious left. Dare we term the list a “mixed multitude?” Exodus 12:38


Comments are closed.