At the heart of Xian nationalism is a hopeless contradiction. This is what we saw yesterday. Guns, violence and force under the banner "Jesus Saves
So here is the contradiction- does Jesus save? Or are we saved by law? It is the same old problem that Paul dealt with in Galatians

How is the kingdom of God built and what is its nature?
Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight."
Christian nationalism hopes to bring about the kingdom by guns and violence and ruthless politicians. The only way any earthly ruler can enforce laws is by force. Jesus knew that, and he set his kingdom diametrically opposed to every kingdom of the earth.
If it is an earthly kingdom, it is not the kingdom of Christ. Politics has its place, but salvation is not its place.
As Sen. Sasse said yesterday, the task of politicians is to enforce order so that people can live their lives in peace. This is a good and healthy goal and sometimes it needs to be enforced with strength.
But it isn't the kingdom of God, and it won't save us.
Xian nationalism seeks to gain the favor of God by enforcing God's law, as defined by the current megalomaniac. It also seeks to avoid God's curse by destroying the "others" who are "sinners"
Thus the contradiction of carrying a "Jesus saves" flag on a violent coup in the Capitol
Christian nationalism confesses with the mouth that Jesus saves, but in practice, salvation comes through cleansing oneself of sinners, purging "wickedness", and enforcing law.
You can believe in Christianity or Christian nationalism, but you cannot believe both.
Xian nationalism serves a kingdom that has its power in weapons and strength and politics and money, because its kingdom is of the world
The kingdom of Christ is more powerful. It goes to the heart and removes sin and brings with it peace nd a new nature -love, rather than hate.
Christian nationalism says, "I'm going to crush those others that are destroying this country and bring about the kingdom of God, like America used to be"
Christianity says, "...the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain (Gal. 2:20-3:1).

You May Also Like

Great article from @AsheSchow. I lived thru the 'Satanic Panic' of the 1980's/early 1990's asking myself "Has eveyrbody lost their GODDAMN MINDS?!"


The 3 big things that made the 1980's/early 1990's surreal for me.

1) Satanic Panic - satanism in the day cares ahhhh!

2) "Repressed memory" syndrome

3) Facilitated Communication [FC]

All 3 led to massive abuse.

"Therapists" -and I use the term to describe these quacks loosely - would hypnotize people & convince they they were 'reliving' past memories of Mom & Dad killing babies in Satanic rituals in the basement while they were growing up.

Other 'therapists' would badger kids until they invented stories about watching alligators eat babies dropped into a lake from a hot air balloon. Kids would deny anything happened for hours until the therapist 'broke through' and 'found' the 'truth'.

FC was a movement that started with the claim severely handicapped individuals were able to 'type' legible sentences & communicate if a 'helper' guided their hands over a keyboard.
The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.


In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.

In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.

This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.

In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.