Introduction
The final draft of the Statement on Christian Nationalism & the Gospel has finally dropped today after well over a year (or two?) of being in a draft state. I was very pleased with the draft when it first came out, with an exception to one or two points. But now with the final version released, and having developed a fair bit in my thought since the last version, I have stronger misgivings. These are criticisms I largely share with this thread by TrebleWoe (though not to the same severity; I don't share his interpretation of the Statement as a "subversive attack" by "men who do not have the aptitude for such a vital task," among other things). I will here only focus on one of these issues, the one which I find to be the most critical to rectify, with the ambitious purpose of not only bringing these issues to the awareness of well-meaning men, but also inspiring further revision of the Statement itself. I wanted to get this blog post out quick while the issue was still hot, while working on multiple other projects at the same time, so please do excuse the somewhat rushed quality.
I – The Core Problem
The most critical problem in the Statement is its understanding of nationhood, ethnicity, and ethnic partiality. Here is the key section:
Article IV: The Definition of a Nation
WE AFFIRM that a nation is not merely an idea, abstract principle, or ideology but tangibly defined by a particular body of people in a particular place. We affirm that a particular people are necessarily bound together by a shared culture, customs, history, and lineage while sharing common interests, virtues, languages, and worship. We affirm, in regards to “place” that a nation is definitively set by both its borders and times physically defined by God (Acts 17:26). Thus, we affirm that nations should rightly maintain autonomous government of their people and place, with the necessary rights and duties to (1) prioritize the security of its people by maintaining its borders, providing for its common defense, and repelling invasions from without and insurrections from within; (2) promote the prosperity of its citizens; and, (3) enforce justice.
WE DENY that a nation should cede its sovereignty to international bodies that may subvert the will of the national interest for a global order. We deny any efforts to establish a “one world” governmental system before the return of Christ, as such efforts are a reenactment of the Tower of Babel. We further deny that sovereign nations must only be composed of mono-ethnic populations to be united under God. Therefore, as Christian Nationalists, we utterly repudiate sinful ethnic partiality in all its various forms.
The core problem I see here, from which other problems arise, is historically novel use of "nation." Rather than its proper use as a reference to a people bound by shared blood, it refers just to the civil polity at large, which may in principle be composed of one or more ethnicities. Much emphasis is played on shared culture, customs, history, even lineage, but shared blood as such is not listed (lineage being capable of reference to distinct ethnic groups which yet have a shared history in the same land). This I believe to be a critical mistake, for reasons I will now outline.
II – Nation as Ethnicity
Historically, "nation," being of the Latin natio, was a direct synonym of the Greek ethnos, and carried the typical meaning of a people from the same blood stock, not (properly speaking) the civil society, which may in principle be comprised of more than one nation (at which point, the civil society is an empire). There were, of course, exceptions to such usage, and even different usages of ethnos entirely which yet were outside of the concept of nationhood, e.g. as referring to class. Nonetheless, the central role of shared blood lineage in nationhood can be seen in the many texts in the book Race and Ethnicity in the Classical World: An Anthology of Primary Sources in Translation, by Rebecca F. Kennedy, C. Sydnor Roy, and Max L. Goldman. Though the introduction tries to dilute the texts they provide by poo-pooing "race" (i.e. White, Black, etc.) as a modern construct, the sources themselves show the critical role that biological origin played in nationhood (which the authors somewhat acknowledge), especially if one does a word search for "blood" in a digital copy. For this particular question, perhaps a better source is Thomas Achord and Darrell Dow's Who is My Neighbour?: An Anthology on Natural Relations, in which they cite legions of texts – ancient and modern, Christian and not – that ascribe an essential role to blood in nationhood. Finally, there is Alexander Storen's A Survey of Racialism in Christian Sacred Tradition, which functions the same as Achord and Dowell's book, but from a seemingly more Romanist perspective and with a closer focus and thus a larger collection of quotes specifically from Christian sources throughout history. All of these works together paint a very clear picture; blood is normative in nationhood. As the cherry on top (or, perhaps, the ultimate foundation), I would simply cite Holy Scripture, which speaks of nationhood as a question of blood all throughout its pages, which I doubt even defenders of the Statement on Christian Nationalism & the Gospel would deny.
What follows are some quotes that paint a general picture:
But there are several degrees of relationship among men. To take our departure from the tie of common humanity, of which I have spoken, there is a nearer relation of race, nation, and language, which brings men into very close community of feeling. It is a still more intimate bond to belong to the same city; for the inhabitants of a city have in common among themselves forum, temples, public walks, streets, laws, rights, courts, modes and places of voting, beside companionships and intimacies, engagements and contracts, of many with many. Closer still is the tie of kindred; for by this from the vast society of the human race one is shut up into a small and narrow circle. Indeed, since the desire of producing offspring is common by nature to all living creatures, the nearest association consists in the union of the sexes; the next, in the relation with children; then, that of a common home and a community of such goods as appertain to the home. Then the home is the germ of the city, and, so to speak, the nursery of the state. The union of brothers comes next in order, then that of cousins less or more remote, who, when one house can no longer hold them all, emigrate to other houses as if to colonies. Then follow marriages and affinities by marriage, thus increasing the number of kindred. From this propagation and fresh growth of successive generations states have their beginning. But the union of blood, especially, binds men in mutual kindness and affection; for it is a great thing to have the same statues of ancestors, the same rites of domestic worship, the same sepulchres. But of all associations none is more excellent, none more enduring, than when good men, of like character, are united in intimacy. For the moral rectitude of which I have so often spoken, even if we see it in a stranger, yet moves us, and calls out our friendship for him in whom it dwells.
~ Cicero, On Duties, 1.17. 44 B.C.
But as for the way of life among the Goths and Vandals, in what single respect can we consider ourselves superior to them, or even worthy of comparison? Let me first speak of their affection and charity, which the Lord teaches us are the chief of virtues, and which he commends not only through the Sacred Scriptures but also in his own words, when he says: '*By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye love one another*'. Now almost all barbarians, at least those who belong to one tribe, under one king's rule, love one another, whereas almost all the Romans are at strife with one another. What citizen is there who does not envy his fellows? Who shows complete charity to his neighbours? All are indeed far from their neighbours in affection, however near in place; though living side by side, they are far apart in spirit. While this is a most grievous wrong, I wish it were true only of citizens and neighbours. But the situation is still more serious, for not even relations preserve the bonds of kinship. Who renders a brotherly service for his next of kin? Who pays to family affection the debt he knows is due to the name he bears? Who is as closely related by his affections as by blood? Who is not fired with a dark passion of ill will? Whose emotions are not the prey of envy? Who doe snot look on another's good fortune as his own punishment? Who does not reckon another's good as his own evil? Who finds his own good fortune so ample that he is willing that another should be fortunate also? Most men are now suffering a strange and incalculable evil, in that it is not enough for any man to be happy himself unless another is thereby made wretched. What a situation is this, how savage, how rooted in the same impiety we deplore, how alien to barbarians and familiar to Romans, that they proscribe one another by mutual exactions.
~ Salvian, On the Government of God, 5.4. Ca. A.D. 439–451.
Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. ... And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.
~ Galatians 3:16 & 29.
These quotes are but an appetiser; the wealth of citations we have from the aforementioned collections is overwhelming. What such evidence should do for us is cause us to question the framework commonly received even among much of the so-called Dissident Right; that one can have a nation, properly speaking, in the natural realm, absent shared blood. From the paradigm of nature, the ancients, the fathers, and Holy Scripture itself, this is false. The implications of this are undeniably massive. While I grant that civil polities could in certain situations licitly be multi-ethnic/national, it becomes undeniable that such is not the best situation, that all distinct nations of people should seek their own distinct civil polities as best accords to their natures. This can, of course, be achieved while yet having a common authority over multiple such civil polities, but this is now most explicitly an empire, which I am okay with, but I suspect many nationalists are not. Either way, there is now a recognised moral significance to shared blood. Contra Neil Shenvi, there is in fact a real sense wherein one is closer to a kinsman he has never met than to the ethnic foreigner whom he personally knows well. We recognise this quite readily on the level of nuclear family, hence why stories like in the movie Lion exist, in which an Indian man is separated from his birth parents at five years old and adopted by an Australian couple, only to return to India in search of those birth parents twenty-five years later. Why was he not satisfied with his adopted parents? They loved him, he loved them, and for far longer than his birth parents; isn't that sufficient? Why is so much importance placed on parents he barely knew, where their only tie is blood? I believe every generally right wing Christian can understand this attachment to one's blood parents; I only argue that we must consistently extend this to other blood relations.
III – "Ethnic Partiality" as Marxist Subversion
The other major problem in the Statement is the use of the term 'ethnic partiality.' I wish to start, however, with a point of charity. Contra some Dissident Right interpreters online, the Statement does not condemn "ethnic partiality" simpliciter, but "sinful ethnic partiality." Some took this as describing all ethnic partiality as sinful, but this makes less sense in light of language convention. I myself frequently use "sinful hatred" as a phrase for the express purpose of denoting a species of hatred, rather than all kinds of hatred, since there are Biblically licit and required forms of hatred (e.g. of sin and of parents in order to follow Christ). This is the only way to make sense of the inclusion of "sinful" in this Statement, which had been worked on for a long time before its 'final' iteration. Otherwise, it is a completely redundant inclusion. Thus, the clause itself is unproblematic; there are sinful forms of ethnic partiality which ought to be condemned, but this does not denote all forms of ethnic partiality.
With that said, there is a deeper problem with the use of "ethnic partiality." Though certainly not deliberate, the term itself was largely established by the Marxist tradition, with the explicit purpose of overthrowing ethnic distinction as a feature of civil society, only later appearing in the Christian tradition. A fan of my channel sent me his own survey of the term via the Google Ngram Viewer, where he compiled the first significant uses of the term. The PDF is attached to this article, and should prove instructive.
Again, though the intended use of the term is quite different in the Statement, it is still meaningful to be deliberate in choosing one's terms, as it demonstrates the sharpness of one's discernment. It would go a long way for the Statement to instead use another term without the Marxist pedigree, in order to deny that ideology even the smallest hint of legitimisation.
IV – A Proposed Solution
In light of the above, I propose that this section of the Statement on Christian Nationalism & the Gospel be modified to include the substance of the following propositions (and, by consequence, modify or remove those propositions which contradict them):
That a nation is, properly speaking, a people united by a) common blood lineage to particular ancestors who were established as a nation by means of a covenant, and b) by common language. Secondarily (though by necessity, for its health), a nation is united by shared religion, customs, and land. As such, nation and ethnicity are synonyms.
That, by consequence of the above, it is good and right for one to exercise preferential love for their own nation, i.e. blood relatives, over non-blood relatives. This includes, among other things, the desire for a mono-ethnic/single-nation society (civil polity).
That the civil polity - which refers to the political, economic, and legal order in a particular geography, distinct from the people within - ought to be composed of one nation, on account of a) the natural right of nations to govern themselves, all else being equal, and b) the necessary increase of disunity and potential for conflict in a multi-national order. This is a general necessity, though it is not necessarily sinful if a civil polity is composed of more than one nation, though such would by definition be an empire.
That it is sin to hate others/other nations/ethnicities/races merely on the grounds of their being a particular race. Critical views of races for reasons beyond mere difference (e.g. the behaviours of that race) are not sinful, but may in principle be true or false. They may only be sinful in the same way that accusations against individuals which are demonstrated to be untrue are sinful.
Conclusion
As alluded to at the start, there was some especially heated backlash at the Statement, which I found unhelpful, even though many good points were raised. I made this short article as my way of responding to the matter with charity, in such a way that pastor Webbon and other framers may consider making what I believe are necessary changes. At a minimum though, I hope the reader found much to chew on.
Comments