If Christian Nationalism Misrepresents Jesus, So Do All Other Institutions Called Christian

Michigan’s largest newspaper fact-checked Stephen Colbert over false attack on Republican candidate for Michigan Governor, Tudor Dixon, according to reporting by Ryan Saavedra for The Daily Wire. Despite Colbert claiming Dixon made up the story, a certain former Democrat voter and candidate from Dearborn has indeed recently left the party in favor of Republicans over concerns about curriculum promoting graphic sexual immorality in the public schools. Meanwhile, a Democrat whistleblower in Florida has come forward claiming they have evidence of two decades worth of illegal ballot harvesting and tampering near Orlando, per Harris Rigby at Not the Bee. But NBC News just quietly retracted a report about the recent attack on Nancy Pelosi's husband at their San Francisco home within hours of having published it, according to Joseph A. Wulfsohn at Fox News. And as Daniel Payne at Not the Bee points out, someone needs to explain why their scoop contradicts the statements by both San Francisco's District Attorney and the FBI. All this brings us back again to considering Johnathan Leeman's October 31st article at 9Marks, which I began discussing at some length in our last episode. Picking up where we left off, I note that Leeman expresses concern about the risk of creeping nominalism with Christian nationalism. Therefore, I can only assume this makes up a large part of his reason for opposing the term and movement. Yet I will say again that all the same reasons Leeman gives for why we would abandon Christian nationalism are reasons we might abandon any and all institutions which call themselves Christian. For that matter, had the early Church thought like Leeman does, they might have rejected the term 'Christian.' That too was a pejorative originally, mockingly deriding followers of The Way as 'Little Christs.'  And some do indeed suppose we are a poor reflection on Christ's character, imperfect as we are. Yet we do not conclude, therefore, that we should not call ourselves Christians. Instead, by God's grace, we trust in God's mercies even as we endeavor to embody greater faithfulness in serving God and one another. Only thereby do we better enjoy personally the blessings of Heaven. Leeman seems to argue that previous generations of Americans being godlier and more Christian in their national identity was worthless, or even sent people to Hell, if subsequent generations of Americans turned away from the Lord, even as our generation has. But this seems to me not so much pro-new covenant as ignoring of the Old Testament entirely. Like the most fatalistic parts of Ecclesiastes, all the obedience and faithfulness of those generations of Israelites God blessed was for naught if the generations that followed them did not all likewise keep the faith and enjoy those blessings. Vanity of vanity, Leeman says. I simply cannot agree with either that conclusion or the premises on which it rests.