Christian governance – an ideal

Should the United States embrace an explicitly Christian governance, in our law and Constitution? What would such governance really look like? Today CNAV looks at what Christian governance would be, and what its detractors want you to think it would be.

Rachel Maddow attacks what she calls Christian nationalism

The debate exploded last night (July 25). Rachel Maddow, still trying to keep her show relevant, attacked something she called Christian nationalism. She also attacked the site Gab.com and its affiliated sites. Anyone watching her segment last night, will see at once what her real quarrels are.

She loves Barack Obama’s idea of the curatorial function of the Mainstream Media. By her logic, she wants certain “accredited” social platforms to “kick people off” them. Then she names several classes, some of whom CNAV would quarrel with – in order to ascribe guilt by association. The names of the people she doesn’t want to see on social media, do not matter. What matters is that she has no respect for freedom of speech or the press.

(For everyone’s information: the correct remedy for someone trying to suppress unpleasant historical memories, for example, is not to try to suppress them. It is to let them express their opinions, however outrageous, with complete freedom, subject to the law against threats. And then to refute those opinions just as freely, if one can.)

She has no respect, either, for Christian precepts or for American patriotism. She probably doesn’t respect anyone’s patriotism, nor loyalty to any system but the globalist system. For that reason, she wants to suppress Christianity and patriotism.

To that end she coins, or repeats, that phrase Christian nationalism.

What’s wrong with that?

Obviously she’s trying to invoke memories of the Nationalist Socialist German Workers’ Party. Others of her persuasion have invoked memories of Benito Mussolini’s Fascists. Never mind that the Nazis and the Fascists ran on government control of industry, which is not a Christian value. The Rachel Maddows of this world love to identify their enemies with the German-Italian Axis of the Second World War.

In fact Christian governance does not mean Christian nationalism. (Or at least, CNAV would prefer not to use that term.) To be a Christian is to be a citizen of God’s Kingdom, not of any particular civilization or nation-state. Christian civilizations and “civilizational states” can and should be allies. But to imply that only one country can have all the true Christians in it, is profoundly mistaken.

Happily, CNAV does not have to respond directly to Rachel Maddow’s tirade. Andrew Torba, the head of Gab, has done that already.

CNAV’s purpose here is to discuss what Christian governance really means, and why America should strive for it.

The history of Christian governance in America

Recall then-President John Adams’ letter to the Massachusetts Militia, October 11, 1798. He said in relevant part:

But should the People of America, once become capable of that deep … simulation towards one another and towards foreign nations, which assumes the Language of Justice and moderation while it is practicing Iniquity and Extravagance; and displays in the most captivating manner the charming Pictures of Candour frankness & sincerity while it is rioting in rapine and Insolence: this Country will be the most miserable Habitation in the World. Because We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Haven’t we come to that precise pass? Don’t our so-called leaders today “assume the language of justice and moderation while … practicing iniquity and extravagance?” And “display in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor, frankness, and sincerity while … rioting in rapine and insolence?” The only difference between Rachel Maddow and the kind of leader of which John Adams warned, is that she has lost her charm. (She is, without a doubt, the most cheerless schoolmarm on television today.) This is why we must become “a moral and religious people” once again.

Falling away – then coming back

Beginning in 1875 with James G. Blaine, America fell away from that ideal of Christian governance. Before him, different States did establish “State churches.” CNAV is aware of no harm that came from that practice. But James G. Blaine wanted to discriminate against Catholics (who among other things had their own schools). Hence “Blaine Amendments” now in thirty-seven States. (Louisiana repealed its Blaine Amendment in 1974.) After that came many bad precedents that only solidified the establishment of atheism as the official American anti-religion.

Besides establishing atheism, those precedents gave support to the notion that the Second Coming of Christ would happen very soon. That prospect was the subject of several literary and dramatic projects, especially in the late 1990s.

But in its 2021 Term, the Supreme Court has repudiated some of the worst of these precedents. Three cases in particular give CNAV a clear signal that God has proclaimed a season of further restraint of the Lawless One. (2 Thess. 2:1-12.) They are:

• Carson v. Makin (20-1088), which thoroughly repudiated all Blaine Amendments and Blaine Laws as unconstitutional on their face,
• Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392), which overruled the infamous Roe and Casey precedents, and:
• Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (21-418), which repudiated Lemon v. Kurtzman and the infamous Lemon Test.

Of the three, Carson stands out as the most important. For it tells the government that it may no longer establish atheism.

Officials holding forth for Christian governance

Of course, even this Supreme Court is reluctant to opine specifically for Christian governance. Indeed in his concurrence in Dobbs, Justice Brett Kavanaugh specifically disclaimed any authority for “the unelected Members of this Court” to establish moral results.

But other elected officials, and candidates, have properly held forth for Christian governance. They include Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.). Lauren Boebert, of course, said explicitly that:

The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church. That is not how our Founding Fathers intended it.

Marjorie Taylor Greene went further, defending Christian governance explicitly:

This movement will actually be the movement that stops the school shootings,… stops the crime in our streets,… stops the sexual immorality, and teaches children, and brings them up, in traditional families and loving homes. This will be the movement that protects kids’ innocence, and nurtures them into responsible adults who grow up to be successful moms and dads.

Who could oppose that? Especially since it covers not only laws but precepts for good home life and the moral instruction of children? Well, evidently a nominally Baptist legal society, which goes by the initialism BJC, shies away from Christian governance.

The next day, one John Carpenter asked quite reasonably what “BJC” would propose as an alternative.

His point is: power, spiritual and other kinds, abhors a vacuum.

In summary

Once again, God has proclaimed a further season of restraint of evil, and perhaps delayed the Second Coming. (Perhaps because “setting dates” always presents a hazard. The late Harold Camping set a date for the end of the world. He was dead within forty-eight hours of the world missing his “deadline.”) Why God so chose, CNAV will not speculate. Perhaps He in His Wisdom believes that patriotic Americans, re-embracing the ideals of Christian governance, will be better recruiters.

In any event, Andrew Torba, in his written response to Rachel Maddow, correctly tells Christians, especially men, to fight. And not only to fight but to fight to win. Especially now that the Supreme Court has changed the game. The day of carving out a private space for the expression of religious belief is over. Christians need not stand by while non-Christians claim unlimited license to lie, cheat, and steal. (And arguably claim a license to kill, which they say will be limited, but for how long?)

So what will a Judeo-Christian civilizational state look like? Perhaps it will have “Blue Laws” mandating that people do give commerce a rest one day per week. Certainly it will distinguish between adults and minors, and protect minors from certain unwholesome exposures. While the law can allow certain pleasures, these must not come at the expense of exploitation of minors – or contributing to their delinquency or compromising their innocence. And the Constitution will recognize life – the greatest gift of all – as a right.