There are very strong views on whether our nation should be called a Christian nation. Is it even possible to be both a Christian as well as a nationalist?
This was the question put to a panel on the BBC’s Sunday Morning Live show this week, where Tim Dieppe, our Head of Public Policy was in discussion with Baptist minister Steve Chalke, author Kate Orson and former MP Nick Fletcher.
The topic came up after the bishops of the Diocese of Southwark issued a statement which included the following:
“We find in the Bible no grounds for the justification of Christian nationalism. Welcoming people through our doors does not mean condoning their actions or agreeing with all their views. But we do believe in the transforming power of the gospel to change and to heal us and we continue to preach the gospel to that end.”
The majority of that statement we would heartily agree with. However, the first sentence is problematic. What actually is Christian nationalism? What’s the definition?
Nick Fletcher pointed out that it is “…very difficult to find an actual definition of what it actually means.” Without a clear definition, the concept remains vague. And if the bishops have not explained what they mean by Christian nationalism, it is difficult to understand why they concluded that there is no biblical justification for it.
Being a nationalist – understood as loving your country – should not be incompatible with being a Christian. This does not mean that the nation is idolised. But it is a recognition that throughout scripture, i.e. the history of the world, God has chosen to work through nations.
Nations can serve as salt and light to the world, as Israel did, but they can also be used as instruments of God’s judgement. Indeed, God even used foreign nations to bring judgement on Israel when they disobeyed his law.
Is God’s Law relevant for today?
I think there is a wider theological point at play here. That is the idea of antinomianism. This is the belief that because we are saved by grace through faith, the moral law no longer applies to us.
On one level this can mean that the antinomian treats God’s grace as a licence to sin – which the Apostle Paul clearly opposes in Romans 6. But it can also show a softer side, whereby the licence to sin isn’t verbally declared, but it is the outworking of the antinomian belief.
This could be where Steve Chalke was coming from. He claimed “The Church resisted gay marriage”. This is directly against God’s law. Not just today, but for all time.
There was a poignant line which Nick Fletcher delivered in response to Steve Chalke. He said,
“The church has been moving to reflect the world instead of asking the world to reflect Christianity…. We should be bringing people to his [Christ’s] teachings not changing what the Bible says to fit with society today.”
This is the blind spot so many Christians have. If you ignore God’s Law, you are ignoring the very foundation of reality. The moral law was not just written for the Church. “Thou shalt not kill” is no more exclusively Christian than “thou shalt not commit adultery.”
These commands are not purely moral guidance. They are part of the God designed, operating system of reality. They remain binding today on all who bear God’s image.
Is ‘Christ is King’ – violent rhetoric?
The programme also raised the question of whether Christian imagery was being used in a way that was intimidating to people. Labels like, ‘offensive’, ‘violent’ rhetoric was used where at some rallies masked men were heard saying ‘Christ is King’.
Part of the problem here is that almost anything can be seen as intimidating to someone. Though, it’s not difficult to see that men in masks can be very intimidating, whatever they are chanting.
Tim contrasted Tommy Robinson’s peaceful Christmas carol service last year with the pro-Palestinian marches, noting that many had branded the former ‘far right’, a label often intended to imply intimidation.
He said,
“I think it’s nowhere near as intimidating as some of the Palestinian marches with all their antisemitic chants and all that kind of thing, which is … actually inciting violence sometimes…”
Bringing up the past
There are many who want to ‘do down’ Christianity, ignoring the positive impact it has had on Western society. Tim Dieppe presented on ‘Our Christian Heritage’ as part of Wilberforce Academy back in 2021. In it he shares the enormous impact it has had on all areas of life; from law to arts to science and education. That does not mean that everything was positive – we are fallen people after all – but when you look back at history, the positive impacts far outweigh the negatives.
But it’s difficult for some to get away from the negatives. It reminds me of Luke 6:26 where Jesus, talking to his disciples, says, “Woe to you when all men speak well of you.” Parts of the modern Church are really wanting ‘men to speak well of them’. But Jesus calls us to proclaim a gospel that can be offensive, and to avoid conforming to the pattern of the World. That could be why there is a focus on the negative aspects of specific Christian input on history. It doesn’t project well.
Steve Chalke gave a scathing criticism of Christianity of the past. He repeatedly mentioned the idea that the Church was against women having the vote, pro-empire and pro-slavery. Tim tried to address the fact that it was Christians who helped to bring about the end of slavery, a point backed up by Kate Orson after confirming she’d read our own Darius Sandhu’s article on William Wilberforce.
The best for our nation
In the end, the definition of Christian nationalism was probably no clearer to the viewer. But it did expose a deeper problem with how we talk about moral law. Steve Chalke speaks as though there is genuine moral authority over our lives, which we agree. He isn’t arguing that anything goes. But he has simply substituted God’s law for his own.
This is the danger of antinomianism. It is a fundamental departure from the gospel, which demands that we recognise Christ as Lord and repent from breaking his moral law.
If we view God’s law as optional or outdated, we are then missing the very foundation needed to answer what our nation’s true values are. And with the rise of Islam through mass immigration with its own Sha’ria Law challenging the very idea of British values, this is not a time to lose sight of the source.
In the past, the influence of Christianity on culture was much clearer. But now with secularisation and Islamisation, the waters are muddier. However, Tim summed it up best in the end. Can you be Christian and a nationalist? He said,
“I want the best for this nation, and the best for this nation is to be as Christian as possible. If that makes me a Christian nationalist, then maybe that’s what I should say I am.”