Rebuttal to Dr. Pollard on Christian Nationalism
I recently saw a couple of interviews on Advent Media Connect with Dr. Leslie Pollard, the YouTube link is Dr. Leslie Pollard Explains Babylon, Christian Nationalism & Religious Liberty. The host (James Devalon) begins with a completely vague introduction to the show at 7:29. Please note the transcript portions have been somewhat cleaned of extraneous words to make the thought clearer:
I did a video where I was speaking about Christian nationalism after I went to the 250th anniversary at the National Mall of the United States and you were giving me some insights cuz I was looking at this thing and I'm like, hm, there's something extremely wrong with this, right? I was still trying to make sense of it all. But um when you call me and say, "Listen, I'm in the process of writing a book right now exposing the nature of Christian nationalism and you have some really interesting insight." So I'm I'm excited”
Do we know what Pastor James did not feel was right? No, he does not tell us what did not feel right; he did appear to ask Pollard to agree that something was not right, but we don't know what that is. But it tells you something about the presuppositions that they are going into this program. As is true of most Seventh-day Adventists (SDA), they have a tradition of not feeling right among other Christians because, to them, they are either a part of the beast power Roman Catholic church or they are among the Apostate Protestants. In any case, they are not part of the Adventist Remnant church. The SDA church states:
"...in the last days, a time of widespread apostasy, a remnant has been called out to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus."We have to keep these things in mind because that is the starting position of many SDAs, so frequently, when in the presence of any Christians, particularly those who don't follow the seventh-day Sabbath like Adventists do, the SDAs are uncomfortable. If you looked up the link for the Roman Catholic and Apostate Protestants above, you see that the presupposition from Ellen White, the Adventist Prophet, is that:
“When Sunday observance shall be enforced by law, and the world shall be enlightened concerning the obligation of the true Sabbath, then whoever shall transgress the command of God, to obey a precept which has no higher authority than that of Rome, will thereby honor popery above God”
Pollard has written a book on the subject Truth and Lie: Finding the Naked Truth in a Dressed-Up Age
Pollard says 8:25:
“I just had a conviction, and I believe it was from the Lord. I had a conviction that we're in an emergency and that silence now is the worst kind of harm because we are in an emergency. Christian nationalism is a very pervasive heresy that we'll unpack everything that I'm saying, but it capitalizes on the dearest sentiments of a citizen: love, country, faithfulness, values it actually kidnaps those values and imports new meaning into what they actually mean. So why did I write it? I wrote it for that reason.
“The second reason... [after a story about his sickness and car accident and speaking to the devil] 12:17 I said sir, I said this book is intended to unveil the deception that you are spinning, and so the title of my book is called Truth and Lie [clears throat], and its subtext is how prophetic Adventism answers Christian nationalism, so this book is written from a distinctively Seventh-day Adventist perspective, okay, and that was my intention. “
This is a telling subtext; it is assuming the prophetic truth of Ellen White and placing it against Christian Nationalism, which he still has not defined other than to say it is bad, as it is a heresy that capitalizes on citizens' love of country, faithfulness, and values. Somehow kidnapping those values and giving the values new meanings. Will we hear what those new values are? No. But as with most writings of deception, there is a tiny bit of truth involved here.
Christian nationalism is his target, yet all of his arguments are directed at Dominionism and Christian Reconstruction and the New Apostolic Reformation. Dominionism seeks a theocratic blurring of the lines between church and state. A subcategory of Dominionism is the Christian Reconstructionists. "Hard" dominionists (Christian Reconstructionists) believe that the civil government should enforce Old Testament Mosaic laws. "Soft" dominionists lean toward believing the legal system should explicitly favor Christian values
The following is a table of the 4 movements. I included the Restoration Movement because it frequently gets confused with the Dominionist movements. It, however, does not have anything to do with Dominionism. But for future reference, I included it here so as to help it from being included as Restoration and Reconstruction are similar word ideas.
Theonomy vs Theocracy
Theonomy is the belief that a society's civil laws should be explicitly derived from God's revealed law—specifically, the judicial and moral laws found in the Old Testament.
A theonomist argues that God’s law is universally binding on all nations at all times. Therefore, civil magistrates are obligated to punish crimes (like theft, murder, or blasphemy) using the exact penalties outlined in the Bible (including Mosaic capital punishment).
Under pure theonomy, the ruler does not have to be a priest or a prophet. The ruler can be a completely secular, democratically elected official, as long as the laws they enforce are God's laws.
A theocracy is a system of government in which God is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, and His laws are interpreted and administered by a religious hierarchy (such as priests, mullahs, or prophets).
In a theocracy, the church (or religious institution) is the state. Religious leaders claim direct divine authority to rule, meaning political dissent is treated as sin or heresy against God Himself. Historical examples include ancient Israel under Moses, John Calvin’s Geneva, or modern-day Iran and Vatican City. Ruled by religious elite or clergy. It might surprise people to see Vatican City there, but it is formally classified as a unitary theocratic elective absolute monarchy.
Both Theocracy and Theonomy are minority viewpoints in Christianity. Critics of Theonomy, like the Gospel Coalition, argue that theonomy misinterprets biblical covenants. They contend that the civil laws of Moses were explicitly designed for the ancient geopolitical nation of Israel and expired with the Old Covenant, meaning modern states should rely on natural law and universal principles of justice rather than ancient civic codes. Theocracy requires a ruling religious elite or clergy.
It is worth noting that Reconstructionists are famous for advocating theonomy but claiming they oppose a traditional top-down theocracy because they don't want priests running the government.
How then do Reconstructionists intend to rule a nation with a founding document like the US Constitution? There are two views:
John Rushdoony, the father of Christian Reconstructionism, argued that the US Constitution was originally intended to preserve a Christian social order. Rushdoony claimed that because the founders relied heavily on English Common Law, the Constitution was inherently grounded in a biblical worldview.
Gary North, a foundational leader and primary architect and co-founder of the Christian Reconstructionist movement, Rushdoony's son-in-law, holds that it is a godless apostate document.
Abolishing the First Amendment: Reconstructionists completely reject modern concepts of religious liberty and pluralism. Under their system, false religions, atheism, and blasphemy would be legally suppressed by civil magistrates.
Imposing a Religious Test: They believe only orthodox Christians who explicitly pledge allegiance to biblical law should be allowed to vote, hold political office, or serve as judges.
Implementing Theonomy: The Supreme Court and civil legislatures would be restricted from "creating" law. Instead, their only job would be to apply the explicit civil statutes and mandatory capital punishments of the Old Testament Mosaic code.
Now that we know where the problem lies, it is pretty clear that there are an extremely limited number of political conservatives that want to tear up the US Constitution. But that is a fundamental idea behind the Dominionists. So where does this idea come from that Dominionists are the same as Christian Nationalists?
Political progressives, left-leaning commentators, and secular media have been the primary driving force behind popularizing the term "Christian Nationalism" and applying it broadly to traditional conservative Christians. ‘Overhyped’ Christian Nationalism Label Draws Political Backlash. There is a massive, ongoing debate regarding how progressives use this label as a sweeping political tool, often flattening the vital distinctions between ordinary believers and radical fringe movements.
Conservative scholars, pastors, and voters argue that progressives use "Christian Nationalism" as a political cudgel to marginalize traditional Christian participation in the public square. It does seem that the progressive cudgel has been working. Study says 32 million Christians likely not to vote
From a progressive viewpoint, any attempt by conservative Christians to pass legislation rooted in traditional morality (such as abortion restrictions, traditional marriage laws, or displaying the Ten Commandments in schools is viewed as an illegitimate attempt to breach the separation of church and state.
By labeling standard, decades-old conservative positions as "Christian Nationalism," progressives can frame ordinary, mainstream political behavior as a radical, extremist threat to democracy.
To justify the narrative that Christian Nationalism is a massive, rising threat, secular and progressive polling organizations (such as the Public Religion Research Institute) often design surveys with very broad, generalized questions. They ask participants if they agree with statements like:
"America's rights and human rights originate from God, not from earthly authorities."
"The U.S. Constitution was grounded in Judeo-Christian principles."
Because millions of standard, Bible-believing Christians naturally answer "yes" to these statements, the pollsters categorize them as "sympathizers" or "adherents" of Christian Nationalism. Progressive media outlets then use these inflated statistics to claim that over half of certain political groups are "nationalists," when in reality, the people surveyed simply hold standard, historic Christian views on God and country. When a conservative Christian politician quotes scripture, prays publicly at a rally, or speaks passionately about America's Christian heritage, secular critics often assume it is a calculated, sinister strategy to establish a theocracy. They often miss that, for the politician and their voters, this is simply the authentic, natural expression of their worldview. Because progressives view it through a purely partisan lens, they default to labeling it as Christian nationalism.
Progressives Say: "Conservative Christians are trying to hijack the country, tear down the First Amendment, and turn America into a right-wing Christian Nationalist state.
What Conservative Christians Actually Believe: "We love our country, we revere the Constitution because it guarantees our religious freedom, and we simply want the liberty to vote our values and protect our families."
By ignoring this perspective, secular media completely misrepresents the grassroots reality. The progressive push to label all conservative public engagement as "Christian Nationalism" has blurred the lines so heavily that it has made honest communication between both sides nearly impossible.
This is where we return to Dr. Pollard 23:44:
“Someone comes along in the 1970s, whether it's the Heritage Foundation, I want to be fair to the Heritage Foundation because I try to be fair in the book. They never call themselves Christian nationalists. So, we have to be careful about saying that because they never say that about themselves. They say we are a conservative think tank, but the Moral Majority in 1979 made it very clear in the language of it today that they were Christian nationalists.”
Applying the label "Christian Nationalism" to the Moral Majority of the 1970s and 1980s is highly anachronistic, as it forces modern secular anxieties and a 21st-century vocabulary onto a completely different historical movement.
Founded by Jerry Falwell Sr. in 1979, the movement was a defensive reaction to what conservative Christians saw as their sudden exile from public life. Following secularizing Supreme Court decisions in the 1960s and 1970s (such as banning school prayer and the legalization of abortion), the Moral Majority's explicit goal was to regain political influence and ensure conservative Christians had a voice in the democratic process. They were acting as a standard interest group working within the existing system.
The progressive misdefinition of Christian Nationalism implies an aggressive, structural claim that America belongs exclusively to Christians, and that the state should explicitly favor Christianity in its legal and cultural framework by restructuring the US Constitution, that is Dominionism.
While the Moral Majority heavily utilized patriotic imagery, flags, and pro-America rhetoric, historians note that their framing was deeply rooted in traditional American civil religion rather than institutional nationalism. They believed that God blessed America when America was moral, which is a standard theme in American history dating back to the Puritans. They were not drafting systematic policy papers to rewrite the First Amendment or strip non-Christians of their voting rights.
The reason modern commentators lazily link the two is that the Moral Majority was the movement that successfully fused conservative evangelical faith with the Republican Party platform. Because the visual aesthetic looks similar—pastors holding rallies, people praying at political conventions, and appeals to America's heritage—modern secular critics treat the Moral Majority as the "First Wave" of Christian Nationalism. Notice the critics have a large political agenda: progressivism vs. conservatism, Republican vs. Democrat.
In reality, the Moral Majority was an exercise in traditional American interest-group politics, whereas the ideologies modern analysts worry about today represent a completely different, much more insular theological shift.
Dr. Pollard has simply accepted the progressive derogatory terminology; thus, conservative political thought becomes Christian Nationalism, and that is the same as Dominionism, and that is the destruction of the entire nation.
Part 2 continues with Dr. Pollard reference to no separation of church and state as a signal of the Dominionist nature of Christian Nationalists.
No comments:
Post a Comment