There is division within Christianity right now over Christian Nationalism.
Should we want our nation to be faithful to God? Or should we want our nation to hate God?
Should our nation’s laws reflect the perfect law of God, like, illegalizing murder? Stealing?
Should Christians in positions of political power act faithfully or unfaithfully?
To me, the answers above are obvious. But they aren’t so obvious to some. Regardless of what side you land on, I want to specifically analyze the way both sides are generally approaching each other in the discussion.
And if someone disagrees with me over my answers to those questions, I would be more than willing to talk about it. However, it’s becoming increasingly evident that the anti-Christian Nationalists aren’t offering us the same kindness.
All of the professing Christian Nationalists at the Fight Laugh Feast conference last week showed a willingness to discuss this with the people who disagree with them. Conversely, G3 at their 2023 conference and on their social media pages for the past few months, have made very clear that they have no interest in discussing Christian Nationalism, even though they regularly attack it and the people who subscribe to it. FLF invited the anti-Christian Nationalist leadership from G3 to the conference and they declined.
A perfect example of this is the following thread from X. Cross Politic invited Owen Strachan and his anti-Christian Nationalism friends from G3 onto the show to discuss Christian Nationalism.
Owen Replied no.
When asked why, he didn’t give any further response.
In defense of Owen, someone named Blake Callens tried showing that Cross Politic was trying to throw Owen to the wolves by suggesting how ridiculous it would be if Stephen Wolfe were invited to discuss Christian Nationalism in a room full of people hostile to his view.
And yet Stephen Wolfe accepted. Of course, it wasn’t a real invitation because these people don’t actually want to talk to Christian Nationalists. It’s not about being lopsided or not. It’s about a total unwillingness of one side to discuss the issues.
One side is willing to talk. The other side isn’t.
What’s going on here?
Big Bad Pigs
Here’s when someone comes in to say, but Jesus said don’t throw pearls before swine!
“Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.”
Matthew 7:6
Let’s take a breath. Before we base our every action on a verse that we interpret as “don’t talk to people you don’t like,” let’s think about this for a moment.
First, let’s assume for the sake of argument that interpretation is true (it’s not).
Who are the ones acting like pigs here?
One side (let’s assume their argument is correct) is rolling around in filth, mudslinging at their opponents, unwilling to discuss their differences. The other side (let’s assume their argument is wrong) wants to talk to the people rolling around in slop to come to some kind of resolution.
Which side is acting more like swine? Ironically, the side that’s doing all of the accusing. Does being correct justify this behavior? No.
We may rightfully consider Matthew 7:6 if there were even an inkling of a chance that we were giving pearls to swine. But in reality, this verse is being used as a weapon to strike at faithful brothers in Christ while they cower from any responsibility, when all they need to do is talk to them.
Since we care so much what the Bible says, consider the plethora of verses that call for peace.
Finally, brothers, rejoice. Aim for restoration, comfort one another, agree with one another, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you.
2 Corinthians 13:11
There are plenty more than this. A lot more than the number verses we can misinterpret to say we shouldn’t talk to people we disagree with.
How then shall we live?
Seek peace. If you try to seek peace and you end up getting raked over the coals in the process, that might be a sign that peace isn’t possible. But we only know this after trying to seek peace.
We cannot know that peace is impossible based on a person’s expressed belief alone.
If that were true, there would be no point discussing any disagreement with anyone. There would be no point evangelizing unbelievers. There would be no point arguing or convincing or reasoning. There wouldn’t even be any point in reading our Bibles. We can’t consistently live this way. So don’t even try.
I’m sad to say I’ve heard plenty of people say this kind of thing within Christian circles.
Instead, we need to be willing to seek peace by discussing differences until we find that it’s impossible.
