"The Case For Christian Civilizationism" - A Response

A civilized rejoinder to Andrew Beck

I came across this article on the American Mind yesterday and thought I would share my disagreements. I know it's not possible to respond to every Christian Nationalism hit piece, but if you let them pile up too high, you start to dread doing the chores. Anyway, here is a brief critique of some of the author's points.

Right off the bat, the author seems to make a distinction between civilization and nationalism, relegating the latter to a type of precursor.

"If harmonious Christian civilization is the destination, the wagon should not simply crash headlong into American political advocacy, capturing seats of power to codify Christian ethics, or using the power of government to evangelize. Rather, those who want Christian civilization should prioritize re-Christianizing America, not re-nationalizing Christianity."

False characterizations aside, re-Christianizing America or civilization is not possible without first defining what those things are. For his part, the author tries to equate America with civilization itself, later describing America as a "civilization-state." This is a term coined in very recent history (1990), describing what some would call "empire-states." For globalists, the dream of the American empire would considered the destination. For everyone else, America is a nation with clearly defined borders. This anti-globalist, anti-empire sentiment is best expressed with the term "nationalism."

So, no. A Christian civilization-state (or American Empire) is actually not the destination.

"Christians must all be open advocates for Christianity. But their victory condition should not be passing pro-Christian legislation. It should be the conversion of souls."

A tortured reading of the great commission strikes again. It's as if the whole 18th chapter of Matthew gets reduced to verse 19. There is more to the great commission than baptizing populations, such as: "teaching them to observe whatsoever I have commanded you." If we isolate any of these verses as the "victory condition," we cut Christianity in half. Reducing Christianity to the conversion of souls, a popular sentiment in evangelicalism, is a blatant attempt to narrow our duties before God.

"There is plenty for Christians to do politically short of indulging in Christian nationalist pipe dreams. Forget capturing the federal government for the purpose of cracking the whip of Christian morality to “unify” Americans who don’t want it. Instead, why not simply advocate for the restoration of American governance at its best—at its most disunited?"

Honestly, this is a pretty tone-deaf comment, lacking any sort of grounding in reality. A very large portion of Christian Nationalists DO advocate for balkanizing strategies. The single most problematic factor, however, is the federal government. Capturing the federal government is certainly a pipe dream, but as American history reminds us, secession is not an option.

Furthermore, while these balkanization strategies are certainly the best path forward, it's also important to note that unity-in-disunity is ultimately untenable with hordes of foreigners. Through DEI, rampant immigration, and "civil rights" policies, federal authoritarians can forcibly open any community, flooding it with disunity. If the author truly believes in the principle of unity-in-disunity, he must also recognize that it can only be taken by force.

"With some loud exceptions, American Christians do not want an explicitly Christian nation, but rather an implicitly Christian civilization."

In my experience, this anomaly is reversed. After all, explicitly arguing for an implicitly Christian society is a contradiction. If someone was advocating for a political stance that implied Christianity, how would we know it unless we were explicitly told? This only proves that the author is making another assumption: that American Christians even want an implicitly Christian civilization. This has clearly not been the case with men like Russell Moore running the evangelical world.

If you want a Christian society, you will need to say so.

"If we are faithful, maybe one day even unbelievers will voluntarily ask us to rule in their affairs."

This is probably the dumbest sentence in the entire article. For a guy who called Christian nationalism a pipe dream, the lack of awareness truly is astounding. Tell me, why does a foolish woman tear down her own home (Proverbs 14:1)? Is it because she is incapable of managing her own affairs? If she wanted a well-run house, the only thing she had to do was NOT destroy it. So why would she? You may find the answer in the second verse:
"He that walketh in his uprightness feareth the Lord: but he that is perverse in his ways despiseth him." -- Proverbs 14:2

The wicked will not hand you the keys to the nation.
They would sooner tear it down out of spite.