This is party from other things you said in other replied you made.
I thought I would end my part in the conversation by saying a few things.
Mainly because the friend that I told you about read James Baird’s book and told me some things based on his book. That I believe give a lot more information than the podcast said.
First of all, much of what my friend told me, I have actually heard Voddie Baucham say in sermons.
As I said before to the question: “Voddie are you a Christian Nationalist?” Earlier this year, Voddie said: “Maybe, depending on your definition of a Christian Nationalist…”. This can be heard in the video I sent you with Voddie.
Having watched Voddie in his sermons, talking about Social Justice, Cultural Marxism, etc.., he would often refer back to the founding fathers of the United States, and Scripture, in order to show that these are opposed to their vision for the country.
From what my friend showed me, Voddie would be very much in agreement with James Baird.
You are free to agree, or disagree with any part of this. However, I believe on my part I can’t afford to spend any more time on this.
————————————————-
I am shortening this a bit, because it is long.
Rebuttal to your saying :
1. “Natural law foundations of justice and social order are completely Christian.”
That statement is half true—but incomplete.
Yes, natural law flows from the Creator’s moral order, as Romans 2:14–15 shows that the law is “written on the heart.” But it is insufficient apart from special revelation. Fallen man suppresses the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18). Therefore, without the corrective light of Scripture, natural law becomes a wax nose—shaped by human reason, cultural sentiment, or even pagan philosophy.
The American Founders understood this distinction. They did not see natural law as a replacement for revealed religion but as its reflection. The same men who framed the Constitution also wrote state constitutions that explicitly acknowledged the Christian Protestant religion as foundational. This was not because they distrusted reason, but because they knew reason is fallen and must be governed by divine truth.
To affirm natural law while denying the necessity of revealed religion is to cut the flower from its root—you may preserve the fragrance for a time, but it will soon wither.
⸻
2. You said:
Christian Nationalists are a distraction from the corruption in culture.
This accusation misunderstands both history and the biblical mandate for civil order.
When Christians affirm that rulers must “kiss the Son” (Psalm 2:12), they are not distracting from corruption—they are confronting its cause. The culture is corrupt precisely because rulers and citizens alike have rejected the authority of Christ over the nation.
The early American founders, from Massachusetts to Delaware, recognized that true religion was essential to good governance. That conviction did not distract them from the moral decay of their time—it was their remedy for it.
To dismiss this today as a “distraction” is to treat spiritual obedience as political overreach. But as Proverbs 14:34 declares, “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.” The problem is not that Christians want to see righteousness applied to law; the problem is that many modern Christians have surrendered that vision.
⸻
3. You said:
They seek to make every citizen acknowledge the Lordship of Christ.
That’s a distortion.
No faithful Christian—past or present—believes civil law can regenerate hearts. The goal is not coerced conversion but righteous governance under Christ’s kingship.
Early Americans did not punish unbelief; they simply expected that public servants uphold the moral and religious framework consistent with the gospel that shaped their civilization.
The Founders knew there is no neutrality in public life. Every government serves a god—either the true God or a false one. To claim the state can be “secular” is itself a religious statement—it deifies man. Christian Nationalism, in its historic sense (Voddie Baucham agrees), simply insists that nations have a duty to recognize Christ’s authority (Psalm 2:8–10; Matthew 28:18–20).
⸻
1. You said:
What will the nationalists do that has not already been established in our long-standing history?
Quite a lot, actually—but not in the way critics imagine.
Christian Nationalists, properly defined, are not inventing something new; they are calling America back to her own history—a time when her constitutions, laws, and moral expectations reflected a Protestant framework. (this is an important point).
In 1778, South Carolina declared the Christian Protestant religion to be the official religion of the state. Massachusetts empowered its legislature to fund the “public worship of God.” Delaware and Vermont required public officials to profess faith in Christ.
If that heritage is “long-standing,” then the real innovation came not from Christian Nationalists but from 20th-century secular revisionism. The 1947 Supreme Court’s reinterpretation of the First Amendment was the radical break—not those who wish to restore the founding order.
⸻
5. You said:
Christian Nationalism is building a boogeyman.
That’s an ironic charge, given that the supposed “boogeyman” is nothing more than the biblical vision of Christ’s kingship applied to civic life.
The Founders did not fear that idea—they legislated from it. They saw the magistrate as a “nursing father” to the church, in line with Isaiah 49:23. They knew civil government is a minister of God (Romans 13:4), not a morally neutral referee.
Modern critics call this dangerous, but the danger lies not in a government that acknowledges God—it lies in one that denies Him. A state that refuses to honor Christ inevitably honors idols: human autonomy, sexual perversion, or statism.
The call to restore a distinctly Christian order is not the creation of a monster; it is the return of sanity.
⸻
6. The Real Question
The issue is not whether nations will be religious—it’s which religion will govern them. The American Founders chose Christianity, not paganism.
Modern secularists have merely swapped one orthodoxy for another: the worship of man instead of the worship of God. Those who appeal to “natural law” while rejecting Christ’s Lordship end up enthroning human reason, which history shows is the cruelest master of all.
Thus, to insist on the Lordship of Christ over nations is not fanaticism—it is faithful stewardship. Anything less is rebellion disguised as moderation.
⸻
Conclusion
The American Founders were Christian nationalists in principle if not in label. They did not fear the union of Christianity and civil order, so long as it was bounded by Scripture and reason.
Their vision was not a theocracy but a Christian Constitutional Republic—a free society governed by laws that reflect God’s moral order. To reject that today is to reject the very foundation on which America was built.
So the question isn’t, as you stated: “What will Christian Nationalists do that hasn’t already been done?”
It’s, “Why have we abandoned what our fathers knew to be good, true, and necessary for liberty?”
What about people like Thomas Jefferson?
The First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”) was written to limit Congress, not the states. It prevented the federal government from creating or prohibiting religion, while leaving the states free to support or establish Christianity as they saw fit. Jefferson himself affirmed this in his correspondence after his presidency.
