"Christian nationalism or Islamic nationalism. Pick one." The argument that "we win in the marketplace of ideas" is such a silly one. Christianity is the hegemonic discourse every other ideology has their barbs pointed at.
Full disclosure..Pr. Peter Burfeind is my pastor and friend.
His points come down to warnings (in Christian Nationalist thinking) against Utopianism and Gnosticism in the form of Conspiracy Theories, overreactions to Pluralism, and extreme views on what fosters Social Cohesion.
He is no man to surrender. Agnus Dei never closed a Sunday during COVID under very restrictive laws in Michigan. Pr Burfeind led homeschool gatherings monthly when such events were forbidden so that our kids could continue to lead normal lives. We drive 70 miles one way on Sundays, for the last 6 years this April, precisely because Peter Burfeind was not resigned to losing in the real world test that took place in 2020 & 2021 in Michigan.
If we cannot serve the same God, have similar ancestry, and/or have shared cultural traditions that comes with all the above, on what basis can there be any social cohesion whatsoever? When we’ve thrown all commonality out the window (and actually classified as morally repugnant) what is it exactly we are supposed to unite around? This is the complete mess we’re in, and the camps that are forming are simply based on who wants to recognize it or not.
I must admit my ignorance concerning the ins and outs of Christian Nationalism. I'd love to see a helpful conversation between well prepared proponents (especially Lutheran) for and against it to get a lay of the land. Anyone know of any that exist? Or suggestions for who might serve as a better counter-voice for Rev. Ramirez?
Gottesdienst podcast had Stephen Wolfe on to discuss his Case for CN book in early 2023 (see ep 271). They should have Wolfe again to discuss the state of the issue and debate, now that a few years have passed since publication, and to respond to objections.
I heard Burfiends interview on Issues etc, genuinenly one of the worst things I have listened to. His thought seems to be a collection of empty sloganeering and not understanding said slogans.
I think it's a testament to a loe estomation that the Issues interview was months ago, and it took this long to arrive at Gottesdienst. I can't imagine how much badgering Birfiemd did to get there.
It was like a rerun of the talk with Biermann, it's almost like they want us to believe there is no argument against Christian Nationalism as defined here. The argument against idealism brought into contrast, in my hearing, that Pr. Burfiend made almost no proposition for what he believes makes for good government beyond "the current system". If Pr. Ramirez would have pressed him to take a detailed positive position I think it would have been more clear as to why Christian Nationalism is becoming popular.
The current American system is not what it used to be and clearly constitutes second or third tier anti-Christian tyranny by the Magdeburg standard, depending on what state you live in. The prescription for Christians is to pursue lawful reform. Our form of government has changed in our lifetimes and will continue to change. For now, it really does not take much courage to try to make it better, only a little compassion and appropriate action.
"it's almost like they want us to believe there is no argument against Christian Nationalism". Agreed. It may be charitable to say he wasn't prepared and to say Biermann wasn't prepared, but in both cases you have men that essentially agreed with the goals of Christian Nationalism as framed (not straw men and boogeymen). The problem was when it came down to how to achieve those ends, and they each expressed concerns with how certain policies would make them feel, as opposed to whether governing authorities could licitly carry out those policies. These are men ruled more by their emotions who don't want to say "no" to someone who will throw a fit, and being scared someone will call them bad names and tell them they are mean.
There was certainly a lot going on there, I wouldn't say scared of the emotional reaction, but rather unwilling to wield power duly granted in the hope that opposing forces would also be unwilling to wield power. If you boil it down, the concerns nullify the goal completely. It is like when causistry goes off the rails so the prescription violates the principal.
Fortunately we have an excellent precedent for wielding expanded political powers in the LCMS in the case of the Harrison and the Blue Ribbon Task Force. It should be a given among us that we do what is right and let dissenters seethe.
I disagree with some of Ramirez's ideas, but AC is right, he won this "debate" by a landslide. Instead of hemming and hawing around definitions of Christian Nationalism during such future debates, why not just have a debate where both sides accept the Ramirez definition, which is clearly articulated and readily available, and just debate that. The only problem there is that many of the aspects of his definition will be agreed to by both sides as we saw in the Biermann discussion.
Ramirez didn’t give Burfeind a chance to debate in good faith.
He refused to accept Burfeind’s definition of CN which is that it is undefinable. And it is. Pick a person, find a new definition.
The postmil reformed and premil Pentecostals are the loudest voices, and largely own the term “Christian nationalism”—and their definition isn’t anything close to what any Lutheran advocates for.
Doug Wilson doesn’t want women to have the right to vote.
Rev. Thoma (CN Lutheran advocate) says that of course he doesn’t support taking away women’s rights. How do you rectify this difference ye use the same language to describe yourself?
We call ourselves Lutherans after-all so perhaps we shouldn’t be embracing unionist terms like “Christian nationalism”.
I as a Lutheran have no interest in unifying with the millennialist reformed or Pentecostals on anything, and I refuse to identify as CN because of that.
Ramirez refused to accept this non-definition and stonewalled and refused to engage beyond definitions.
"He refused to accept Burfeind’s definition of CN which is that it is undefinable."
Ummm... Ramirez refused to accept a definition which was anti-definition? You acknowledge this, and yet you blame this on Ramirez?
If we cannot establish an actual definition of a thing it is impossible to comment on that thing at all, whether to the positive or to the negative. There is literally nothing to talk about because we don't know what we're talking about. No subject has been established, so any commentary is a waste of time. Kind of like the discussion turned out to be (through no fault of Ramirez who was honestly trying to engage in good faith by offering his own concise and easily defensible definition).
I don't want women to have the right to vote. Neither does the Bible for any meaningful electoral domains. Explicit exceptions, usually in smaller settings, are precisely exceptions, or domains that don't have to do with the public or governance.
The "Christian" part of "Christian Nationalism" can be verified against the Bible. Women's suffrage is a very basic category that wouldn't need much nuance at all. It can be checked against the Bible and a consensus can be reached rather quickly.
"Christian nationalism or Islamic nationalism. Pick one." The argument that "we win in the marketplace of ideas" is such a silly one. Christianity is the hegemonic discourse every other ideology has their barbs pointed at.
Full disclosure..Pr. Peter Burfeind is my pastor and friend.
His points come down to warnings (in Christian Nationalist thinking) against Utopianism and Gnosticism in the form of Conspiracy Theories, overreactions to Pluralism, and extreme views on what fosters Social Cohesion.
He is no man to surrender. Agnus Dei never closed a Sunday during COVID under very restrictive laws in Michigan. Pr Burfeind led homeschool gatherings monthly when such events were forbidden so that our kids could continue to lead normal lives. We drive 70 miles one way on Sundays, for the last 6 years this April, precisely because Peter Burfeind was not resigned to losing in the real world test that took place in 2020 & 2021 in Michigan.
Sincerely
Jon Townsend
If we cannot serve the same God, have similar ancestry, and/or have shared cultural traditions that comes with all the above, on what basis can there be any social cohesion whatsoever? When we’ve thrown all commonality out the window (and actually classified as morally repugnant) what is it exactly we are supposed to unite around? This is the complete mess we’re in, and the camps that are forming are simply based on who wants to recognize it or not.
I must admit my ignorance concerning the ins and outs of Christian Nationalism. I'd love to see a helpful conversation between well prepared proponents (especially Lutheran) for and against it to get a lay of the land. Anyone know of any that exist? Or suggestions for who might serve as a better counter-voice for Rev. Ramirez?
Gottesdienst podcast had Stephen Wolfe on to discuss his Case for CN book in early 2023 (see ep 271). They should have Wolfe again to discuss the state of the issue and debate, now that a few years have passed since publication, and to respond to objections.
Another useful exercise that Gottesdienst, On the Line, or other Lutheran podcast can do: walk through the six questions posed here https://clearlyreformed.org/6-questions-for-christian-nationalists/ from a Lutheran perspective.
Examples of responses to the six questions by non-Lutherans:
https://americanreformer.org/2025/12/almost-christian-nationalist/
https://youtu.be/aZ4FAfBL2Bo (this is Stephen Wolfe discussing the 6 questions)
I heard Burfiends interview on Issues etc, genuinenly one of the worst things I have listened to. His thought seems to be a collection of empty sloganeering and not understanding said slogans.
I think it's a testament to a loe estomation that the Issues interview was months ago, and it took this long to arrive at Gottesdienst. I can't imagine how much badgering Birfiemd did to get there.
AC describes this interview perfectly. Burfeind should have done some homework as Ramirez has quite a bit of content online.
It was like a rerun of the talk with Biermann, it's almost like they want us to believe there is no argument against Christian Nationalism as defined here. The argument against idealism brought into contrast, in my hearing, that Pr. Burfiend made almost no proposition for what he believes makes for good government beyond "the current system". If Pr. Ramirez would have pressed him to take a detailed positive position I think it would have been more clear as to why Christian Nationalism is becoming popular.
The current American system is not what it used to be and clearly constitutes second or third tier anti-Christian tyranny by the Magdeburg standard, depending on what state you live in. The prescription for Christians is to pursue lawful reform. Our form of government has changed in our lifetimes and will continue to change. For now, it really does not take much courage to try to make it better, only a little compassion and appropriate action.
"it's almost like they want us to believe there is no argument against Christian Nationalism". Agreed. It may be charitable to say he wasn't prepared and to say Biermann wasn't prepared, but in both cases you have men that essentially agreed with the goals of Christian Nationalism as framed (not straw men and boogeymen). The problem was when it came down to how to achieve those ends, and they each expressed concerns with how certain policies would make them feel, as opposed to whether governing authorities could licitly carry out those policies. These are men ruled more by their emotions who don't want to say "no" to someone who will throw a fit, and being scared someone will call them bad names and tell them they are mean.
There was certainly a lot going on there, I wouldn't say scared of the emotional reaction, but rather unwilling to wield power duly granted in the hope that opposing forces would also be unwilling to wield power. If you boil it down, the concerns nullify the goal completely. It is like when causistry goes off the rails so the prescription violates the principal.
Fortunately we have an excellent precedent for wielding expanded political powers in the LCMS in the case of the Harrison and the Blue Ribbon Task Force. It should be a given among us that we do what is right and let dissenters seethe.
I disagree with some of Ramirez's ideas, but AC is right, he won this "debate" by a landslide. Instead of hemming and hawing around definitions of Christian Nationalism during such future debates, why not just have a debate where both sides accept the Ramirez definition, which is clearly articulated and readily available, and just debate that. The only problem there is that many of the aspects of his definition will be agreed to by both sides as we saw in the Biermann discussion.
Ramirez didn’t give Burfeind a chance to debate in good faith.
He refused to accept Burfeind’s definition of CN which is that it is undefinable. And it is. Pick a person, find a new definition.
The postmil reformed and premil Pentecostals are the loudest voices, and largely own the term “Christian nationalism”—and their definition isn’t anything close to what any Lutheran advocates for.
Doug Wilson doesn’t want women to have the right to vote.
Rev. Thoma (CN Lutheran advocate) says that of course he doesn’t support taking away women’s rights. How do you rectify this difference ye use the same language to describe yourself?
We call ourselves Lutherans after-all so perhaps we shouldn’t be embracing unionist terms like “Christian nationalism”.
I as a Lutheran have no interest in unifying with the millennialist reformed or Pentecostals on anything, and I refuse to identify as CN because of that.
Ramirez refused to accept this non-definition and stonewalled and refused to engage beyond definitions.
He gave him many chances. His non-answer and deflection made it impossible for them to debate. But that wasn't Ramirez's fault.
"He refused to accept Burfeind’s definition of CN which is that it is undefinable."
Ummm... Ramirez refused to accept a definition which was anti-definition? You acknowledge this, and yet you blame this on Ramirez?
If we cannot establish an actual definition of a thing it is impossible to comment on that thing at all, whether to the positive or to the negative. There is literally nothing to talk about because we don't know what we're talking about. No subject has been established, so any commentary is a waste of time. Kind of like the discussion turned out to be (through no fault of Ramirez who was honestly trying to engage in good faith by offering his own concise and easily defensible definition).
I don't want women to have the right to vote. Neither does the Bible for any meaningful electoral domains. Explicit exceptions, usually in smaller settings, are precisely exceptions, or domains that don't have to do with the public or governance.
Great. Yet another individual opinion on CN.
The "Christian" part of "Christian Nationalism" can be verified against the Bible. Women's suffrage is a very basic category that wouldn't need much nuance at all. It can be checked against the Bible and a consensus can be reached rather quickly.
“Christian Nationalism is a political ideology informed by the Christian faith, not a religion informed by political ideology.” - Matthew E. Cochran