In my first post about Christian nationalism, I talked about how everyone’s definition is different. So before we get started, I want to make it clear that today I’ll be discussing Christian nationalism in the sense of a top-down, authoritarian approach to aligning a nation’s laws with the Bible.
The people who want this kind of government today in the United States usually view early America through rose-colored glasses. They love the idea of returning to the 1800s when everyone was Christian and nobody questioned how many genders there were. Don’t get me wrong, I get it. I’m sick and tired of postmodernism too. But it’s naive to think that early America was some kind of ideal Christian nationalist society.
A Christian Culture?
It is true that the vast majority of early Americans identified as Christian. As one might expect, this led to leaders, policies, and ways of living that reflected traditional Christian values to some extent. But make no mistake, this was still a country rife with sin. The true, invisible church has always been a minority.
“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.” — Matthew 7:13-14 (ESV)
Most people who call themselves Christians in an accepting society are not bonafide believers. They’re nominal Christians—Christian in name only. They might believe in good moral principles. They might go to church. They might even read their Bible. But none of this makes you a Christian. Only by truly believing in Jesus Christ and his sacrifice for you on the cross can you be saved.
“But,” I hear you say, “even if the true church was the minority, wouldn’t you rather live in a society full of nominal Christians than a society full of degenerates?” Not really. I’d rather evangelize to people who don’t know Christ than people who’ve been deluded into thinking they’re Christians because they attend church. Sure, living in a society accepting of Christians is more comfortable for me, but we are not promised comfort and it’s not our end goal as Christians. Regardless, it’s not our decision how people behave because we cannot control what people believe.
The Founding Fathers Rejected Christian Nationalism
You see, early America had this thing called the First Amendment. In part, it reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
The founding fathers had various perspectives on religion. Many were deists or Unitarians. Some were devout Christians.1 But in the end, they agreed that freedom of religion was necessary and a state church was a bad idea. This philosophy traces its origins back to the Anabaptist movement.2 It also flies in the face of Christian nationalism, which proposes that we revoke this freedom in favor of an exclusively Christian state. The harsh reality is that the founding fathers rejected this notion, though their writings were still clearly inspired by Christian principles.
Some will argue that because everyone identified as Christian at the time, the founding fathers really only wanted freedom of denomination, not freedom of religion. This might make some degree of sense at first glance. We should interpret the founding documents according to their historical context, right? Well, maybe, but not to the degree that we completely change the meaning of the original text. The First Amendment makes no distinction about denominations. It addresses religion. To those who still disagree, I would ask you this: Do you think the Second Amendment is only supposed to apply to old-fashioned muskets? Of course not. It addresses the right to bear arms. This doesn’t change with the times. Neither does the First Amendment change with the times.
Early Americans Fled Christian Nationalism
Why did the founding fathers value freedom of religion? Well, it goes back to the settlers who came over on the Mayflower. Not to be confused with the British settlers who founded Jamestown to expand the Crown, these Pilgrims were fleeing a form of “Christian nationalism” back home. They were sick of being persecuted for their beliefs by the Church of England. We talked in my last post about the dangers of giving governmental power to any specific branch of Christianity. You end up with one group of Christians condemning another group of Christians as heretics and bringing down the full force of the state upon them. This is not the way of Christ.
“Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will… What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.” — Philippians 1:15, 18 (ESV)
Paul is not too concerned with those preaching Christ from wrong motives. In Mark 9:38-41, Jesus tells the apostles not to worry about separate groups of people casting out demons in his name. I get the feeling that Jesus does not look down kindly on the horrific violence between “Christian” governments throughout history.
From Christian Colonies to Free States
The Puritans who founded the Massachusetts Bay Colony were much closer to being Christian nationalists. They also fled religious persecution, but they sought to create explicitly Christian commonwealths under England to demonstrate that their beliefs were superior to the state church they escaped. They had laws against committing adultery, committing blasphemy, and ignoring the Sabbath. The punishment in many cases was death, after one or two strikes.3 Remember, this is when Christianity had its strongest influence on the civil order of society.
From the Library of Congress:
“The religious persecution that drove settlers from Europe to the British North American colonies sprang from the conviction, held by Protestants and Catholics alike, that uniformity of religion must exist in any given society. This conviction rested on the belief that there was one true religion and that it was the duty of the civil authorities to impose it, forcibly if necessary, in the interest of saving the souls of all citizens. … The dominance of the concept … meant majority religious groups who controlled political power punished dissenters in their midst.”4
The colonial era saw plenty of Christian-on-Christian persecution. This time, it was between Protestant groups over denominational differences. Whichever group had the most influence in a region bullied minority groups until they submitted or fled. And if you were Catholic, you could expect even worse treatment. We don’t want to go back to these times. It wasn’t the utopia many believe it was. I much prefer the mentality of the founding fathers, who in the course of creating one of the best countries in the world, implemented some of the strongest protections for human rights and freedom for all.
“Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.” — Ephesians 4:32 (ESV)
The Christian influence on America didn’t stop with the founding fathers, however. Laws in various states relating to Christian principles persisted through the 19th century, such as religious requirements to hold public office. But by the 20th century, the Supreme Court was striking down these discriminatory laws, the separation of church and state saw more support, and public opinion shifted towards humanism. Today, some of these laws remain on the books, but they’re never enforced.
Conclusion
As you can see, there’s a lot of nuance in the history of American Christianity. The Pilgrims sought to separate from the Church of England so they could worship in peace. The Puritans fled from persecution under Christian nationalism, only to establish their own version of it. The founding fathers enshrined freedom of religion in our Constitution, but the public continued to uphold Christian values in the fabric of society for many decades. Now, we’re seeing the continual downfall of Christian influence on American life. Many long for the old days, and I can see why. But it’s important that we not forget the lessons our history has taught us.
1. Implicit Christian influence has always led to a healthier society. It’s impossible to deny the positive cultural effect that a majority Christian opinion can have on a nation.
2. Explicit Christian authority has always led to persecution and oppression, whether it’s the Church of England against the Pilgrims, the Protestant settlers against each other, or both Protestants and Catholics against the Anabaptists.
I’m very thankful that the founding fathers established freedom of religion. It’s why I can drive past so many different denominations worshiping peacefully on the way to my own church with its specific beliefs and traditions. It’s why none of us have to fear for our lives when we change our minds about certain doctrines or secondary issues. It’s why we still have the power to openly preach the gospel to our neighbors despite the fact that most of our nation has fallen so far from God. I’m proud to be an American.
Let me know your thoughts in the comments below. Enter your email to be notified for my next post. Thanks for reading. Godspeed.
Sources:
- Stratton, Eleanor. “Founders’ Vision of Religious Freedom.” U.S. Constitution.net. May 23, 2024. https://www.usconstitution.net/founders-vision-of-religious-freedom/
- Verduin, Leonard. That First Amendment and The Remnant, The Christian Hymnary, 1998.
- Smith, Sarah M., Tucker, Ellen D., Tucker, David. State (Colonial) Legislatures>Virginia House of Burgesses & William Penn. “Laws, Rights, and Liberties Related to Religion in Early America: Articles, Laws, and Orders, Divine, Politic, and Martial for the Colony in Virginia.” December 31, 1610. https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/laws-rights-and-liberties-related-to-religion-in-early-america/
- “America as a Religious Refuge: The Seventeenth Century, Part 1.” The Library of Congress. https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html
Veracity Quest 
The problem with these conclusions is both statements are false.
1. Implicit Christian influence has not always led to a healthier society. I include spiritual health in the definition of healthy. Every implicitly Christian nation has slowly, steadily, and predictably devolved into evil over time (this is because of the sin nature of man), resulting in the worsening spiritual (and therefore overall) health of the society as a whole. No civilization based on implicit Christian influence has lasted very long. America has been the longest lasting that I can think of right now and that is mostly because of how hard the founding fathers made it to change the laws that were based on Christian principles.
2. This is a Post Hoc Ergo Proper Hoc (After this therefore because of this) fallacy. Explicit Christian authority is not the cause for the persecution. Persecution and oppression occur in every culture and every place because of any explicit authority at all. Any explicit authority (including the United States government) is going to cause persecution and oppression towards certain groups because those certain groups don’t do the things that the authority deems appropriate. However, we know explicit authority is necessary because without it, government wouldn’t function. You can’t place the blame on the ‘Christian’ part of nationalism here. It (explicit authority) is present in every government because that is what government is by definition. I’d prefer to have an explicit Christian authority that is slightly different than me in belief (different denomination) than one that is outright opposed to Christianity (like we have now). Explicit Christian authority has not always led to persecution and oppression. Explicit authority has (because it has to or it wouldn’t be authority).
“Every implicitly Christian nation has slowly, steadily, and predictably devolved into evil over time”
Was the implicit Christian influence the cause of this decline? No. It slowed the decline.
“America has been the longest lasting that I can think of right now and that is mostly because of how hard the founding fathers made it to change the laws that were based on Christian principles.”
It’s the exact opposite. America wasn’t founded on Christian nationalism or overbearing laws, as I explained in my post. It was founded on religious freedom and human rights, which is precisely why it has lasted so long. Christian laws are different from Christian principles, by the way. Christian laws being overturned is not what caused the decline. Public opinion shifting from theism to humanism to modernism to atheism to postmodernism is what caused the decline. People just tore down Christian principles as they went.
When you look at authoritarian Christian governments, they devolve into violence fast, though the average citizen might pretend to align with the state so they don’t get killed, contributing to a facade of amiability. That is not Christian. That’s coercion.
“This is a Post Hoc Ergo Proper Hoc.”
It’s “propter hoc” and I didn’t use this fallacy. You actually used it when you argued that every implicitly Christian nation has slowly devolved over time (without addressing the actual cause). I’m not arguing that violence is caused by authoritarian Christian governments because one follows the other. My argument is based on principles inherent in the structure of religious authoritarian governments (which are consistently visible in recorded history).
“explicit authority is necessary because without it, government wouldn’t function.”
I partially agree with you. Some kind of authority is needed in all societies. All authority necessarily imposes itself onto others to some degree, yes. But that does not mean that all forms of authority are the same and will inevitably lead to violence on a massive scale like we saw after the Reformation. Just look at America! We’ve seen relative peace and prosperity for hundreds of years thanks to the efforts of the founding fathers (separation of powers, elected representatives, the Constitution, fair court systems, etc). There’s still bloodshed, but it’s usually reserved for violent criminals who deserve it.
When America did take part in oppression, it was out of turn with our founding documents. There’s a huge difference between our treatment of African American slaves (which violated the human rights established in the Constitution) and the burning of Protestants under Roman Catholicism (which was perfectly aligned with that government’s laws at the time).
“You can’t place the blame on the ‘Christian’ part of nationalism here.”
I am not blaming the “Christian” part of the equation. I’m simply critiquing Christian nationalism as a concept, mostly scrutinizing the authoritarian aspect. This form of authority is not functional for a peaceful, just society, and we can identify why. It posits that heretics must be violently punished if they aren’t aligned with the state church. It posits that one ruler’s whims (or a ruling elite) can guide an entire society effectively, which ignores how easily power corrupts individuals. It posits that applying specific religious rules to the entire population will cause the morals of the nation to be upheld, which is only fleetingly effective. And it usually posits that you can force people to convert, which is untrue. Worst of all, it opens the door to abuse if there is ever a bad king or ruling elite in the future (see ancient Israel). You could wake up one morning and your entire nation is flipped on its head. It’s much harder for that to happen in a country structured like America.
“I’d prefer to have an explicit Christian authority that is slightly different than me in belief (different denomination) than one that is outright opposed to Christianity (like we have now).”
I don’t think you would. The chances are high that you would be punished or outright killed if you believed differently from the state church, as I’ve already shown and history can testify to. Your chances of surviving are directly proportional to how authoritarian the government is vs how libertarian it is. The more authoritarian (like the governments in the Thirty-Years War), the more they’ll be willing to burn heretics. The less authoritarian (like America), the more they’ll be willing to let you live your life. And that’s something you want, right? Or would you rather be forced to convert to Catholicism as long as everyone else was too?
Today’s American government is not outright opposed to Christianity. It’s by far the most common religion in the nation (https://www.prri.org/research/2020-census-of-american-religion/). Churches are everywhere and not underground. Every president claims to be Christian! Now, I know what you’re thinking. Joe Biden isn’t a Christian. I agree, but this shows us two things. First, the fact that he considers it advantageous to pretend to be Christian indicates how accepted it is. Second, he’s a perfect example of the kind of bad leaders and fake converts you will get under Christian nationalism, except then he’d have even more power.
America is still the most free nation in the world for Christians. Go to any hundreds of other countries and you will likely be persecuted for your faith. In America, we have the privilege of complaining about immorality in the culture at large without seeing much direct persecution ourselves. The worst it usually gets is verbal hate or slander in the media (Matthew 5:11). We are blessed beyond belief and it’s very important to recognize that. It’s why I argue in favor of libertarian societies like America over authoritarian societies.
My point still stands. Your conclusion in the article is false.
My point about America was that it is an example of a place with implicit Christian influence. Note the sentence before what you quoted.
Can you provide an example? I’d also like to hear your definition of ‘fast’. Most Christian nations that I have heard of in history weren’t killing people for things that didn’t carry the death penalty in scripture. If requiring citizens of a nation to obey the Bible is coercion, then God is coercing His people in the Old Testament in promising to punish them for disobeying Him.
Again, you misinterpreted my statement about the devolvement of implicitly Christian nations. I said the cause of the decline was the sin nature of man (similar to what you argued). Not the lack of explicit Christian laws.
Except you are. You said “Explicit Christian authority has always led to persecution and oppression” that word always is pretty strong. It means that no matter what, every single explicit Christian authority every time leads directly to persecution and oppression. You can cite some historical examples, but that doesn’t mean your statement is not a post hoc ergo propter hoc. The exact statement I was addressing is the numbered item listed in your conclusion. If you wanted to state it differently that includes the principles you are talking about, it might go something like “Explicit Christian authority has been shown through some historical examples to lead to persecution and oppression as a result of certain principles inherent in the structure of the system.” That is more wordy, but it is also a more accurate reflection of your position as I understand it. I still disagree with it though.
I think we agree here. Different forms of authority work in different ways with different outcomes, but ultimately explicit authority is necessary in some form for all societies. I made the point I did because you seemed to be saying the problem was explicit authority in general.
So it sounds like your main problem is with the idea of enforcing things that are explicitly Christian, rather than enforcing laws with a Christian/moralistic deistic flavor to them. That is probably an oversimplification, but I will let you speak into that.
I do think I would. Your statement about me being killed for believing a doctrinal difference (say, credobaptism vs pedobaptism), is false. The Bible makes it clear what is a punishable by death offense. More minor doctrinal disagreements is not one of them. Homosexuality, however, is one of them. If the government wasn’t making the church a political entity (like the Roman Catholic church did near the end, which was a bad move) then you don’t get people being killed for minor disagreements. Most Christian nations were not like the Roman Catholic church was when it comes to individuals disagreeing with the denominational convictions.
Christianity isn’t accepted. Just look at the views of the liberals. They want those who have Christian beliefs to be killed. Anyone who is Christian knows that Biden isn’t a Christian. Anyone who is Christian can tell whether someone is flat out lying about their faith or not. Sure it can be difficult sometimes, and there can be apostasy, but Christians putting other Christians into government means you generally don’t get the superficial ‘Christians’ running things because they never had a chance from the start.
I agree, and that is a problem. There should be more nations that aren’t opposed to Christianity and should welcome it (and be Christian nations). I agree we are blessed. That doesn’t mean that the blessing comes because of this form of government. That just doesn’t necessarily follow.
Your last sentence really gets at the heart of things here. You are arguing a fundamentally libertarian position.
From the website of the libertarian party: “Libertarians strongly oppose any government interference in your personal, family, and business decisions. Essentially, we believe all Americans should be free to live their lives and pursue their interests as they see fit as long as they do no harm to another.” This is the philosophy that your arguments seem to come from.
When we look at where this philosophy comes from, we see that it is a direct result of philosophers like John Stuart Mill. This philosopher was blatantly anti-Christian and advocated for other anti-Christian positions such as egalitarianism. A term tied to Libertarianism is “Laissez-faire”. This whole philosophy is historically associated with liberalism (and for good reason). It is an explicitly non-Christian liberal philosophy. It effectively allows individuals to do whatever sins they want to do as long as other people are not affected. The problem with this is that it denies God’s divine authority and it is inherently unloving towards others.
If you are a libertarian, you simply aren’t believing what the Scriptures say about how to love your neighbor, which includes doing what you can to prevent him from sinning if necessary.
This is my last long comment on this post. Again, arguing with you is not productive.
>”My point still stands. Your conclusion in the article is false.”
Your point has nothing to do with my conclusion. Implicit Christian influence will always make a society better than if it wasn’t present. You can’t deny that and you didn’t deny that. You only argued that these societies will devolve over time. This is true of any society (all are affected by sin). But Christian influences still contribute to the health of society. I don’t understand why you’re arguing over this point when you agree with it. You just want to go even further than implicit influence.
>”My point about America was that it is an example of a place with implicit Christian influence.”
Wait, what? Do you know what the word implicit means? On the other post, you said this: “The Christian morals that have affected this country are anything but incidental. … Most of the people founding the country did so because they wanted a Christian nation.”
You keep going back and forth. Was early America an example of Christian nationalism or was it just influenced by Christian principles?
>”Can you provide an example?”
I already did, but here’s more. It’s not hard to find if you look it up. Even a cursory knowledge of history reveals that authoritarian Christian governments do not turn out well.
Bloody Mary: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mary-I
Thirty Years’ War: https://www.britannica.com/event/Thirty-Years-War
Münster rebellion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnster_rebellion and https://www.britannica.com/topic/Anabaptists
Bishops’ Wars: https://www.britannica.com/event/Bishops-Wars
William Tyndale: https://www.britannica.com/biography/William-Tyndale
Toggenburg War: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toggenburg_War and https://www.jstor.org/stable/42554355
The Massacre of the Waldensians: https://www.worldhistory.org/article/2057/the-sixteenth-century-massacre-of-the-waldensians/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savoyard%E2%80%93Waldensian_wars
Ireland’s long conflict between Protestants and Catholics: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07907184.2021.1877900#d1e182
An excerpt from that last one:
“Attacks might be non-violent: satire, parody, and mockery of the other’s beliefs, rituals and symbols. But very often they went much farther: the desecration or destruction of each other’s sacred objects, spaces and buildings, or physical attack, including the spontaneous violence of the mob or the judicial violence of the state. Beyond this again lay armed rebellion, civil war, wars of conquest and reconquest, and interstate war. The violence was frequently savage and massacres were routine. Religious minorities suffered everywhere.”
>”Most Christian nations that I have heard of in history weren’t killing people for things that didn’t carry the death penalty in scripture.”
Then you need to read more history. See above. Also, death penalties in the Bible are exclusively in the context of ancient Israel, which isn’t a thing anymore. We never see the early church establish strict punishments and death penalties for sins. The Corinthians were dealing with severe sexual sin in their midst and they were told to dis-fellowship with those responsible, not kill them. Jesus prevents the woman caught in adultery from being stoned, instead calling her to repentance. Do you think she should have been stoned?
>”If requiring citizens of a nation to obey the Bible is coercion, then God is coercing His people in the Old Testament”
God promises punishment (death) for everyone who sins, not just his people. He’s God. We are not. He is ruler over all. We are not. He is the judge. We are not. He is the avenger. We are not. Trying to argue that we’re responsible for making sure everyone on earth doesn’t sin (using Rom 13) is absurd. It’s missing the point entirely. The only hope for anyone is not Christian government, but the gospel. If you’re going to kill people with the power of the state because they’re sinners, you have to kill all the Christians too. Let God be the judge. Show people the way to salvation so the Judge lays their punishment on Christ instead. Trust me, God doesn’t need our help to punish sinners. He’s got it handled.
>”you misinterpreted my statement… I said the cause of the decline was the sin nature of man (similar to what you argued). Not the lack of explicit Christian laws.”
But wait, you said this earlier: “America has been the longest lasting … because of how hard the founding fathers made it to change the laws that were based on Christian principles.”
Sin is the primary cause, yes, but you definitely argued that a lack of Christian laws contributed.
>”You said ‘Explicit Christian authority has always led to persecution and oppression’ that word always is pretty strong. It means that no matter what, every single explicit Christian authority every time leads directly to persecution and oppression.”
Then it should be easy to prove me wrong. Provide an example of when an authoritarian Christian government did not lead to persecution. Anyways, you know what I meant—that it happens practically every time. I’m using hyperbole to get my point across. You’re playing semantics games again and pretending to misunderstand me so you can win the argument. Stop. If your friend said to always check to make sure your doors are locked before bed, you wouldn’t pick apart his use of “always.”
>”I still disagree with it though.”
Then why bother playing semantics games?
>”You can cite some historical examples, but that doesn’t mean your statement is not a post hoc ergo propter hoc.”
I laid out a laundry list of logical (not sequential) reasons why the principles of explicit Christian authority lead to persecution and violence. This was in addition to historical evidence. Stop bringing up this fallacy. I did not use it.
>”Your statement about me being killed for believing a doctrinal difference (say, credobaptism vs pedobaptism), is false. The Bible makes it clear what is a punishable by death offense. More minor doctrinal disagreements is not one of them.”
Oh, so you’re assuming that these Christian governments are going to perfectly align themselves with the Bible (or at least ancient Israel’s punishments for some reason)? How many times did that happen in history? Show me. Then explain to me why this time things will be different.
>”If the government wasn’t making the church a political entity (like the Roman Catholic church did near the end, which was a bad move) then you don’t get people being killed for minor disagreements.”
How on earth do you expect to pursue Christian nationalism in America without uniting church and state? Also, this statement is just wrong. There are many examples (some of which I linked to) in history where there isn’t an official church entity within the state. It was just a majority of the population aligned with a Christian king who went off to wage war or kill other Christians.
>”Most Christian nations were not like the Roman Catholic church was when it comes to individuals disagreeing with the denominational convictions.”
You can’t just make statements like this without any evidence. See my history links above.
>”Christianity isn’t accepted. Just look at the views of the liberals. They want those who have Christian beliefs to be killed.”
Maybe you should talk to some normal people on the street. You will quickly find that the average person is not the “death to Christians” type. Those are a loud minority online. The average person is a (self-identified) Christian, per the stats I linked previously (70% of the country). And this wasn’t even about that! You changed the subject. This was about whether our government is accepting of Christianity. In most respects, it is. We are free to practice our faith.
>”Christians putting other Christians into government means you generally don’t get the superficial ‘Christians’ running things because they never had a chance from the start.”
True Christians are always the minority in any big country (Matthew 7:13-14). How do you expect them to vote in the right people, even if they were able to somehow vote perfectly?
>”That doesn’t mean that the blessing comes because of this form of government. That just doesn’t necessarily follow.”
I don’t believe God singled out American government as sacred or anything like that. But I do believe this form of government is objectively one of the best and it’s far more efficient at creating a society accepting of all Christians than the many examples of Christian nationalism from history.
>”You are arguing a fundamentally libertarian position. From the website of the libertarian party…”
I don’t support the party, Matthew. I used the word “libertarian” in a general sense, opposed to authoritarian. Like the way your favorite dictionary defines it: https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/libertarian
>”it denies God’s divine authority and it is inherently unloving towards others. If you are a libertarian, you simply aren’t believing what the Scriptures say about how to love your neighbor, which includes doing what you can to prevent him from sinning if necessary.”
You miss the point entirely. I do believe that a more libertarian society is overall better, but the philosophy for my arguments against Christian nationalism is based in my faith as a Christian, a follower of Jesus. He did not tell us to conquer nations. He told us to spread the gospel to them. He did not tell us to minimize global sin (though less evil occurring is obviously preferable). He told us to eradicate sin in our own hearts and churches. He did not tell us to kill those who are stuck in sin. He told us to kick them out into the world, away from the church, in hopes that they might someday repent and turn back to the truth. Christian nationalism is not the answer to Christ’s message for us in the New Covenant. I only bring up European history as a warning. I only bring up American history to demonstrate my greater point and provide context. The most practical government leans libertarian with Christian influences (America). But our primary concern is not worldly governments. It’s saving souls and living as unto Christ in the church. I’ll talk about this more in future posts.
>”what the Scriptures say about how to love your neighbor, which includes doing what you can to prevent him from sinning if necessary.”
Can you show me where the Bible says that loving your neighbor means holding a gun to his head to make sure he doesn’t sin? Because that’s what the government is. It’s the power of violence vested in the state to enforce laws. I think instead you will find that loving your neighbor means doing no wrong to your neighbor (Rom 13:9-10), evangelizing to him (Rom 10:10-17), and the golden rule (Mark 12:31).
Then I guess it isn’t worth my time trying to convince you of the biblical doctrines that the church has held for thousands of years. Nor is it worth my time to argue against the points you made in this comment, considering you are unwilling (or unable) to engage in ‘semantics’ that are necessary to begin arguing in the first place.
All I will say is this:
The bible gives rules to live by for individuals because it is mostly targeted at individuals. Every time it speaks to a nation, it is telling the nation (specifically those in charge) to serve God in its laws and in its punishments (Christian nationalism). No, we are not to go kill our neighbor for a capital sin because it is not our responsibility or realm of authority. That is the responsibility and realm of authority of the government, and it would be a sin for us to be vigilantes and get involved there. It would similarly be a sin for the government to not do its duty and enforce God’s laws there. The civil law in the old testament was never abolished and is still in effect. Christ’s death on the cross satisfied the ceremonial law and established the new covenant. The ten commandments (the summary of the civil law) are still in effect, and ought to be followed, though they do not save you.