" I Didn't Move; You Did" (Part 15A) Christian Nationalism And The "Sacrament" of War

In the first part of this series, I spent a good deal of time looking backward. I revisited the statements, declarations, and public witness of the evangelical movement that shaped me. Again and again, I found leaders insisting that Christians must care for the poor, pursue justice, tell the truth, defend the vulnerable, practice humility, and maintain enough distance from political power to speak prophetically to it. (My previous post looked at the kind of global responsibility the evangelical movement once took seriously.)

Then I turned to the present. I have been asking a simple question: What happened?

Why have so many voices that once challenged presidents now defend them? Why have leaders who once insisted that character matters decided it suddenly doesn't? Why has the movement become so comfortable with nationalism, partisan identity, and political power?

I don't think there is only one answer. But I do think one answer explains much of the shift. It is the growing embrace of Christian nationalism, a danger we were constantly warned about for the past 50 years. Here are some excerpts from the declarations I posted.

We must resist the temptation to make the nation and its institutions objects of near-religious loyalty.

God has ordained the two co-existing institutions of church and state as distinct and independent of each other with each having its own areas of responsibility (Rom. 13:1-7; Mark 12:13-17; Eph. 4:15-16, 5:23-32).

All too often we have abandoned our Lord’s concern for those in the shadows, the twilight, and the deep darkness of the world, and become cheerleaders for those in power and the naïve sycophants of the powerful and the rich…

…The other error, made by both the religious left and the religious right in recent decades, is to politicize faith, using faith to express essentially political points that have lost touch with biblical truth. That way faith loses its independence, the church becomes “the regime at prayer,” Christians become “useful idiots” for one political party or another, and the Christian faith becomes an ideology in its purest form. Christian beliefs are used as weapons for political interests...

Christians from both sides of the political spectrum, left as well as right, have made the mistake of politicizing faith…Whichever side it comes from, a politicized faith is faithless, foolish, and disastrous for the church – and disastrous first and foremost for Christian reasons rather than constitutional reasons...

Called to an allegiance higher than party, ideology, and nationality, we Evangelicals see it our duty to engage with politics, but our equal duty never to be completely equated with any party, partisan ideology, economic system, or nationality. In our scales, spiritual, moral, and social power are as important as political power, what is right outweighs what is popular, just as principle outweighs party, truth matters more than team-playing, and conscience more than power and survival...

The politicization of faith is never a sign of strength but of weakness. The saying is wise: “The first thing to say about politics is that politics is not the first thing.” The Evangelical soul is not for sale. It has already been bought at an infinite price...

We repent of our failures to condemn and restrain violence by remaining silent, by promoting nationalism, or by unjustly supporting conflicts through deficient theological justification.

We lament that some Christians have looked to the state rather than the gospel as the key means for bringing about God’s intentions for the world. This takes an especially regrettable form when wed to nationalism—here defined as the belief that every state should have a single, national culture and no other—or ethnonationalism—which is the belief that every ethnic group should have its own state. This is a great evil in our world.

We lament that many Christians have been sadly complicit in it, as well as in the claims of ethnic and racial supremacy it fosters. Against this, we assert that no modern state is able to claim or will ever be able to claim to be the special agent of God’s saving rule.

I read Francis Schaeffer back in the 80s and 90s. I taught the How Should We Then Live video class to high schoolers. Though Schaeffer had some unfortunate influences (#rushdoony), he had some good insights that were spreading throughout the evangelical world.

“There is no New Testament basis for a linking of church and state until Christ, the King returns. The whole "Constantine mentality" from the fourth century up to our day was a mistake. Constantine, as the Roman Emperor, in 313 ended the persecution of Christians. Unfortunately, the support he gave to the church led by 381 to the enforcing of Christianity, by Theodosius I, as the official state religion. 

Making Christianity the official state religion opened the way for confusion up till our own day. There have been times of very good government when this interrelationship of church and state has been present. But through the centuries it has caused great confusion between loyalty to the state and loyalty to Christ, between patriotism and being a Christian.

We must not confuse the Kingdom of God with our country. To say it another way: "We should not wrap our Christianity in our national flag.” ― Francis A. Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto

The late Billy Graham, Christianity Today’s founder, gave us a loud warning in an article he wrote for Parade Magazine in 1981, when he said: 

“I don’t want to see religious bigotry in any form. It would disturb me if there was a wedding between the religious fundamentalists and the political right. The hard right has no interest in religion except to manipulate it.”[1]

Historically, evangelicals advocated for a prophetic distance from power, especially wealth and political authority, from which they could freely speak truth and righteousness to those in power. They had a stated suspicion of nationalism and “near-religious loyalty” to the state.[2]

Today, in practice and teaching, it endorses proximity to power[3] and defense of leaders regardless of character, often openly embraces Christian nationalism, and seeks to merge faith with political identity.

I Didn't Move; You Did (Part 11): The Shifting View On Violence And War

In the first post of this series, I noted that my struggle with modern conservative evangelicalism is not with its theological orthodoxy. I still affirm doctrines that historically defined evangelical Christianity. The deeper question is whether our orthopraxy—the way we live out those beliefs—still resembles the commitments we once publicly embraced. 

I reviewed a number of evangelical statements, declarations, and manifestos spanning more than fifty years in order to look at the orthopraxy to which we were called: Chicago Declaration of Evangelical Social Concern (1973); Lausanne Covenant (1974); The Manila Manifesto (1989); The Amsterdam Declaration (2000); The Health Of Our Nation (2004); An Evangelical Manifesto (2008); The Capetown Commitment (2010); For the Health Of The Nation 2014; and the Seoul Statement (2024).

In the previous post, I addressed the public shift - revealed through votes and voices (or lack of them) - in responding to racism and discrimination.  In this post, we are looking at the conservative evangelical shift in regards to violence and war.

If there is one thing that distinguished the Kingdom Jesus announced from every kingdom of this world, it was this: Jesus refused to establish God's reign through coercion or violence.

He rebuked Peter for taking up the sword in His defense. He told Pilate that His kingdom was "not from this world," because if it were, His servants would fight. He taught His followers to love their enemies, pray for those who persecuted them, bless those who cursed them, and overcome evil with good.

Christians have disagreed about many things throughout history, including when governments may legitimately wage war. But historically, evangelicals consistently warned against glorifying violence, confusing nationalism with the Kingdom of God (I will address this in an upcoming post), or treating military power as God's preferred instrument for accomplishing His purposes.

That concern appears repeatedly in the major evangelical statements of the last fifty years.

• "we must challenge our misplaced trust of the nation in economic and military might – a proud trust that promotes a national pathology of war and violence which victimizes our neighbors at home and abroad."
• "Among the evils we deplore are destructive violence, including institutionalized violence, political corruption, all forms of exploitation of people and of the earth..."
• "We urge governments to pursue thoroughly nonviolent paths to peace before resorting to military force. We believe that if governments are going to use military force, they must use it in the service of peace and not merely in their national interest. Military force must be guided by the classical just-war principles, which are designed to restrain violence by establishing the right conditions for and right conduct in fighting a war. In an age of nuclear and biological terrorism, such principles are more important than ever. We urge followers of Jesus to engage in practical peacemaking locally, nationally, and internationally. As followers of Jesus, we should, in our civic capacity, work to reduce conflict by promoting international understanding and engaging in non-violent conflict resolution."
• "We acknowledge with grief and shame the complicity of Christians in some of the most destructive contexts of ethnic violence and oppression, and the lamentable silence of large parts of the Church when such conflicts take place. Such contexts include the history and legacy of racism and black slavery; the holocaust against Jews; apartheid; ‘ethnic cleansing’; inter-Christian sectarian violence; decimation of indigenous populations; inter-religious, political and ethnic violence; Palestinian suffering; caste oppression; and tribal genocide…"
• "We urge governments to pursue domestic, foreign and security policies that encourage justice and peace by preventing conflict. We urge governments to thoroughly pursue nonviolent paths to peace. If governments use military force, they should deploy it justly in the service of sustainable peace and not to serve narrow national interests. Governments should at a minimum restrain violence by applying classical just war principles, which are designed to clarify the limited conditions under which military action is justifiable, and establish standards of right conduct in fighting a war...As such, we urge the Body of Christ to engage in sober, practical peacemaking, nonviolent conflict resolution and citizen diplomacy at local, national and international levels."
• "We repent of our failures to condemn and restrain violence by remaining silent, by promoting nationalism, or by unjustly supporting conflicts through deficient theological justification. We condemn those who use their influence in world affairs to promote avoidable conflicts and wars, merely to further their economic and political interests. We are saddened by the immense suffering their actions have caused. We believe that they will be held accountable before God on the day of judgement. We call all Christians to serve the vulnerable in contexts of war by pooling our resources and supporting the relief efforts of churches and humanitarian organizations that are situated near conflict zones..."

What is it looking like now in terms of what evangelicals are supporting, both with their votes and their words (or lack of them)? And I'm not just talking about full-blown war. I'm talking about creating a culture that is comfortable with violence and aggression as a means justified by an end.

Trump's second campaign contained some promising rhetoric against war. [1] But while he was saying this, he was already consistently inciting his followers to violence. This should not be surprising considering what happened during his first term. And in his second term, the promises of no new wars dissolved in the face of reality.

"I Didn't Move; You Did" (Part 9): The Shift In Caring the Poor and Vulnerable

After explaining my motivation for writing this series, I reviewed a number of evangelical statements, declarations, and manifestos spanning more than fifty years: Chicago Declaration of Evangelical Social Concern (1973); Lausanne Covenant (1974); The Manila Manifesto (1989); The Amsterdam Declaration (2000); The Health Of Our Nation (2004); An Evangelical Manifesto (2008); The Capetown Commitment (2010); For the Health Of The Nation 2014; and the Seoul Statement (2024).

Among other issues, they shared a remarkable consistency on one key point: Christians have a responsibility to care for the poor, the vulnerable, and those who lack power through personal commitment and public advocacy.

"...defend the social and economic rights of the poor and the oppressed."

"...maldistribution of the nation's wealth and services..."

"...feed the hungry, care for prisoners, help the disadvantaged and handicapped..."

"...when our evangelism is linked with concern to alleviate poverty... it reflects the compassion of Christ and may gain an acceptance it would not otherwise receive."

"We will work for measures that strengthen the economic viability of marriages and families, especially among the poor."

"God identifies with the poor (Ps. 146:5-9), and says that those who 'are kind to the poor lend to the Lord' (Prov. 19:17), while those who oppress the poor 'show contempt for their Maker' (Prov. 14:31). Jesus said that those who do not care for the needy and the imprisoned will depart eternally from the living God (Matt. 25:31-46). The vulnerable may include not only the poor, but women, children, the aged, persons with disabilities, immigrants, refugees, minorities, the persecuted, and prisoners. God measures societies by how they treat the people at the bottom."

"The prophetic teaching insists on both a fair legal system (which does not favor either the rich or the poor) and a fair economic system (which does not tolerate perpetual poverty). Though the Bible does not call for economic equality, it condemns gross disparities in opportunity and outcome that cause suffering and perpetuate poverty, and it calls us to work toward equality of opportunity."

"What we are about is captured not only in books or declarations, but in our care for the poor, the homeless, and the orphaned; our outreach to those in prison; our compassion for the hungry and the victims of disaster..."

"The Bible tells us that the Lord is loving toward all he has made, upholds the cause of the oppressed, loves the foreigner, feeds the hungry, sustains the fatherless and widow… God holds responsible especially those who are appointed to political or judicial leadership in society, but all God’s people are commanded…to reflect the love and justice of God in practical love and justice for the needy...We embrace the witness of the whole Bible, as it shows us God’s desire both for systemic economic justice and for personal compassion, respect and generosity towards the poor and needy."'

"Just as faith comes by hearing, faith is always accompanied by works. These works promote the common good, prioritise care for the poor and most vulnerable, and advance the cause of justice following the example of our Lord. (Matt 5:16; John 13:35; Eph 2:8-10; Luke 4:18-19)."

Historically, evangelicalism called for deep concern and active care for the poor and vulnerable on a personal and corporate level. If evangelical commitments were good and sincere in 1973, 1974, 1989, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2010, 2014 and 2024, they should still matter now.

But today, in practice, conservative evangelicalism votes for, defends, and even celebrates politicians and policies that disproportionately burden the poor, minorities, the handicapped, and other vulnerable people. I am astonished and disheartened at the complicity. 

It might not be intentional, but it is happening. Please allow me to explain by giving examples of what has been happening to the poor and vulnerable under the Trump administration's leadership.

After all, as Trump himself said, "We're fighting wars. It's not possible for us to have daycare, Medicaid, Medicare, all these things." 

I Didn't Move; You Did" (Part 7): For the Health of our Nation (2014) and The Seoul Statement (2024)

In my first post of this series, I explained why I have become increasingly uncomfortable identifying as an evangelical. I encourage you to read it so you understand what I am doing.

Since then, I have been highlighting parts of mainstream evangelical Declarations and Statements that highlight expected orthopraxy (right actions) for evangelical followers of Jesus. This will lead into a much closer look at what kinds of shifts have taken place in the past 15 years. So far we have covered:

• the Chicago Declaration of Evangelical Social Concern (1973) , and the Lausanne Covenant (1974)
• the Manila Manifesto (1989)
• the Amsterdam Declaration (2000) and The Health Of Our Nation (2004)
•  the Evangelical Manifesto of 2008
• the Capetown Commitment (2010)

Finally, we will look at two in this post before wrapping up this portion of the series. As before, I am not focusing on the orthodoxy (right belief) part of the statements. I am focusing on orthopraxy (right practice).

"I Didn't Move; You Did" (Part 5): An Evangelical Manifesto (2008)

 In my first post, I explained why I have become increasingly uncomfortable identifying as an evangelical, as it has become increasingly willing to excuse attitudes, behaviors, and priorities that seem incompatible with the character and teaching of Jesus as taught to me in my evangelical upbringing.

My second post began to offer a sampling of decades of statements beginning in the 1970s put out by evangelical leaders and organizations.  

The third post was about a major manifesto in the 80s called the Manila Manifesto, published at the Second International Congress on World Evangelization (Lausanne II) held in Manila, Philippines in July 1989.

The fourth post highlighted the Amsterdam Declaration (2000) and The Health Of Our Nation (2004).

This post remains in the 2000s. There will be two more 'declaration' posts to consider after this one, and then we will move into the contrast between the conservative evangelicalism in which I was raised vs. what it has now become.

I know this is a lot of background, but the framing is important. 

"I Didn't Move; You Did" (Part 4): The Amsterdam Declaration (2000) and The Health Of Our Nation (2004)

 In my first post, I explained why I have become increasingly uncomfortable identifying as an evangelical, as it has become increasingly willing to excuse attitudes, behaviors, and priorities that seem incompatible with the character and teaching of Jesus.

My second post began to offer a sampling of decades of statements beginning in the 1970s put out by evangelical leaders, organizations, denominations, colleges, and ministries. They provide a record of what the movement publicly claimed to stand for, even if evangelicalism did not always live consistently with its principles.

The third post was about a major manifesto in the 80s called the Manila Manifesto, drafted by the British evangelical pastor and theologian John Stott along with  the drafting team at the Second International Congress on World Evangelization (Lausanne II) held in Manila, Philippines in July 1989.

This post will look at two key declaration released in the 2000s.

Billy Graham released the Amsterdam Declaration in 2000. You can read the whole thing here. The Amsterdam Declaration is a lengthy document. Much of what it contains is a reiteration of historical Christian positions of both orthodoxy and orthopraxy in evangelical Christianity. It’s well worth your time to read the entire declaration.  I am posting sections that highlight what used to be mainstream evangelical beliefs that led to particular kinds of practices.

"I Didn't Move; You Did" (Part 3): The Manila Manifesto (1989)

In my first post in this series, I explained why I have become increasingly uncomfortable identifying as an evangelical, as it has become increasingly willing to excuse attitudes, behaviors, and priorities that seem incompatible with the character and teaching of Jesus.

 

My second post began the process of offering a sampling of decades of statements (beginning in the 1970s) put out by evangelical leaders, organizations, denominations, colleges, and ministries. They are declarations and manifestos explaining what they believed Christian evangelicals should value and how Christians should engage the world. They provide a record of what the movement publicly claimed to stand for, even if evangelicalism did not always live consistently with its principles.

 

This post is about a major manifesto in the 80s called the Manila Manifesto. The Manila Manifesto was produced and drafted by the British evangelical pastor and theologian John Stott. He led the drafting team at the Second International Congress on World Evangelization (Lausanne II) held in Manila, Philippines in July 1989. [1]

"I Didn't Move; You Did" (Part 1): An Ode To A Lost Evangelicalism

I spent 45 years as a proud conservative evangelical. It was my home. It wasn’t perfect, but nowhere else was either. Evangelicalism helped shape my love for Scripture, my devotion to Jesus, my commitment to conversion, prayer, mission, and discipleship. I owe much to people within it.

In the circles I grew up in, I was also taught the importance of engaging with the community and the world in a way that brought healing and hope.

We sent missionaries near and far dedicated to telling others about the good news of the Gospel, often accompanied by acts of service to show that we cared about the whole person, not just their souls.

We promoted foster care, adoption, and crisis pregnancy centers as a proactive way to build a culture of life.

Evangelical disaster relief organizations did incredible work in meeting practical needs in areas devastated by natural disasters.
Personally, my experience in the local churches in my life - Sunday School, youth group, services, revival meetings, potlucks, small groups, community outreach - gave me many wonderful memories and formed me in ways that I still cherish. [1]

The evangelical neighbor who quietly loves Jesus, serves the poor, cares for refugees, tells the truth, honors his marriage vows, and treats political opponents with dignity is not the source of my disillusionment. In many ways, they are evidence that the best of evangelicalism still shows sparks of life.

And yet, here I am, feeling the need to no longer be associated with evangelicalism because of the terrible toll the Trumpification of conservative evangelicalism has taken on its witness, reputation, and impact.

I’m not a grumpy curmudgeon, pummeled by evangelicalism, who now just wants an excuse to throw shade. No, conservative evangelicalism was the Christian ecosystem into which I was born, and for most of my life, it felt like home.

I helped build it. I voted party line most of my life. I participated in the ecosystem. This is not a story about “those people.” It is a story about me and “my people.”

Speaking of “my people,” this series is not primarily aimed at the sincere evangelical Christian who voted for Donald Trump while wrestling with competing concerns and difficult choices. I know many such people. Some are dear friends. Some remain among the most faithful followers of Jesus I know.

Many Christians concluded that one set of policies represented a lesser evil than another. Whether I agree with that conclusion is not the point. Reasonable people can disagree about political strategy, candidates, and public policy.

My concern is different.

The Evangelical Kaleidoscope: Part Four - Identifying And Clarifying Modern Evangelicalism

Honestly, I didn't expect to write this much about evangelicalism. The more I'm writing, the more I'm realizing what I didn't know, and how what I now know is... confusing.

This series of posts is my attempt to organize the inside of my head. I don't know if it resonates with you or not. I hope it does.

I think I have one final part after this one - but I thought that after my last post, so we will see.

Part One: Evangelical History In A Quadrilateral Nutshell

Part Two: Quadrilateral"isms" - Racism, Fundamentalism, Pentecostalism, and Neo-evangelicalism.

Part Three: Evangelicalism And Politics

___________________________________________________


Identifying and clarifying modern evangelicalism is difficult for a number of reasons.

The Lack Of Shared Belief

A 2017 LifeWay research report noted that many who identify as evangelical don't hold traditional evangelical beliefs.[1] Many self-identified evangelicals rarely go to church. As long as anyone can claim the term without adhering to at least the minimal standards of identification, it’s going skew polls. When Christianity Today and Gallop did a poll in the late 1970s about self-identified evangelicals, so many respondents did not accept evangelical attributes that the survey had to cut their estimate of evangelicals in America from 34% to 18%[2].

The Self-applied Label

A surprising number of Catholics and even Eastern Orthodox Christians identified themselves as evangelical, even though that's supposed to refer to a subset of Protestants. Is an evangelical Catholic vote an evangelical vote or a Catholic vote? Which part has more influence in the booth?

The Leadership/Laity Gap

There is a gap between how evangelical leadership and evangelical congregants think about the intersection of faith and politics. 83 percent of evangelical leaders do not believe evangelicals in America should be identified with the person and policies of the current president. You don’t hear this kind of sentiment expressed by the average ‘evangelical’ voter you see interviewed on TV.

The Changing Gatekeepers

Leadership in evangelicalism has always been a reflection of whoever gets the most attention or is taken the most seriously. In recent years, mainstream institutions have ceded leadership to the evangelical/industrial complex of televangelists and megachurch pastors. Donald Trump’s evangelical advisory council - with Paula White, the Copelands, and other CBN/TBN/NOW celebrities - exemplifies this. Now, says Robert Jones of the Public Religion Research Institute, this “weird slice of the evangelical world” has gained so much power that “they are the [evangelical] world.”[3] The institutions that once guided and stabilized evangelicalism - CT, Wheaton, the NEA - are a “vanguard without an army.”