The Case for Christian Nationalism

Were the American founders wrong for not building in safe guards against secularism? Is there a way to have freedom of religion and at the same time guard against secularism? I believe the answer to both these questions is YES.

Nations from the dawn of human civilization have been built on three pillars much like the three legged stool I have pictured at the top of this article.  These three pillars are a common religion, a common ethnicity and a common language.  The more diversity you have in any of these three areas the weaker the unity of your nation becomes eventually leading to its collapse.

In my previous article “Is Ethno-Nationalism a Sin against God or by His design?” I gave this quote by Victor Davis Hanson from his article in National Review entitled “America: History’s Exception”:

 “The history of nations is mostly characterized by ethnic and racial uniformity, not diversity.

Most national boundaries reflected linguistic, religious, and ethnic homogeneity. Until the late 20th century, diversity was considered a liability, not a strength…

Countries, ancient and modern, that have tried to unite diverse tribes have usually fared poorly. The Italian Roman Republic lasted about 500 years. In contrast, the multiracial Roman Empire that after the Edict of Caracalla in AD 212 made all its diverse peoples equal citizens endured little more than two (often violent) centuries.

Vast ethnically diverse empires such as those of the Austro-Hungarians, the Ottomans, and the Soviets used deadly force to keep their bickering ethnic factions in line — and from killing each other.” [1]

In that article on ethno nationalism I argued that America’s change from laws protecting ethnic homogeneity (via the 1790 Naturalization Act) have led to a weakening of the American nation and fractures along ethnic lines.  Why? Because even though we have tried to stamp out racial hatred (which is good thing) you cannot stamp out racial clustering in other words, racial preference.  I showed statistics in my article “Is Self-Segregation a Sin?” that the vast majority of people of all ethnicities prefer to marry and live around people of their own ethnic group and this natural racial preference among human beings will inevitably lead to division in a nation.

So this common ethnicity, one of the three pillars that is crucial to any nation’s unity, has been badly weakened over the last century and it is continuing to degrade more each year.

In this article I want to talk about another pillar that is essential to national unity and that is common religion.

Why America’s Founding Fathers Wanted Freedom of Religion

The first amendment to the United States Constitution reads:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

The founding fathers gave us this to protect the people from state churches like the Anglican Church in England as well as state churches that existed in the American colonies.

One the greatest champions for religious freedom and separation of Church and State was a Baptist minister name John Leland(1754-1841). Hundreds of Baptist ministers had been imprisoned throughout the colonies for “disturbing the peace” or in other words not going along with the Anglican or Congregational state churches in various colonies.  John Leland brought the plight of these Baptist ministers to the attention of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.  James Madison had already heard of Baptist imprisonments in Virginia and was fighting for their freedom in there.

In order to secure the support of Leland and his many Baptist followers in Virginia, James Madison had to promise Leland that he would add specific protections for religious liberty to the new Constitution.  This is why Leland is credited by many historians as the greatest influence of religious liberty on Madison and therefore the first amendment.

In 1790, a year before the first amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights was ratified Leland wrote:

“The notion of a Christian commonwealth should be exploded forever. … Government should protect every man in thinking and speaking freely, and see that one does not abuse another. The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence, whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks, Pagans and Christians.” [2]

In 1791 Leland again wrote:

“Is conformity of sentiments in matters of religion essential to the happiness of civil government? Not at all. Government has no more to do with the religious opinions of men than it has with the principles of mathematics. Let every man speak freely without fear–maintain the principles that he believes–worship according to his own faith, either one God, three Gods, no God, or twenty Gods; and let government protect him in so doing, i.e., see that he meets with no personal abuse or loss of property for his religious opinions. Instead of discouraging him with proscriptions, fines, confiscation or death, let him be encouraged, as a free man, to bring forth his arguments and maintain his points with all boldness; then if his doctrine is false it will be confuted, and if it is true (though ever so novel) let others credit it. When every man has this liberty what can he wish for more? A liberal man asks for nothing more of government.” [3]

And in 1804 Leland Wrote:

“Experience, the best teacher, has informed us, that the fondness of magistrates to foster Christianity, has done it more harm than all the persecutions ever did.” [4]

Were America’s Founding Father’s Secularists?

While men like Thomas Jefferson and John Leland were champions of religious liberty they were not the advocates of a purely secular government as some of their statements have made them look.  We need to look at their actions, not just their words to see what they truly meant.

In a speech he gave at at Beeson Divinity School on May 2nd, 2000  Richard Land made the following historical observation comparing Jefferson and Leland’s words on separation of church and state to their actions:

“Clearly, Jefferson saw no contradiction between his concept of church and state separation and having a gift personally presented to him at the White House with a promise of continued prayer by a prominent Baptist preacher on the morning of the very day he wrote to the Danbury Baptist ministers, and less than 48 hours later attending a Sunday morning worship service where that minister — John Leland — preached from the Speaker’s podium in the well of the U.S. House of Representatives” [5]

Were there secularists among the founders like Thomas Paine? Yes.  But the truth is it can be easily proven by their diaries, personal letters and public statements that the vast majority of the founders were indeed Christians.

In response to Thomas Pain’s “Age of Reason” John Adams wrote:

“The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard Paine say what he will.” [6]

And Adams was not the only founder to attack Paine’s secularist views.   Samuel Adams, Benjamin Rush, Charles Carrol, Patrick Henry, William Paterson and John Jay were amongst just a few of many founders who condemned Paine for his work. Zephaniah Swift stated at the time the following of Paine’s work:

“He has the impudence and effrontery to address to the citizens of the United States of America a paltry performance which is intended to shake their faith in the religion of their fathers.” [7]

The Error of the First Amendment

As much as Americans cherish the first amendment there was a fundamental flaw in design which came from men like John’s Leland’s “experience”.   As we previously noted Leland said that “Experience, the best teacher” regarding his views of the separation of church and state and religious liberty.  We also gave his statement that “…Let every man speak freely without fear–maintain the principles that he believes–worship according to his own faith, either one God, three Gods, no God, or twenty Gods; and let government protect him in so doing”. 

The problem with this thinking, which also heavily influenced Madison, is that it opened the door open for secularism to poison American culture.  If Leland could witness what happened over the next two centuries and “experiance” what happened as a result of having no protection for Christianity or Christian principles in this country I think he might have reconsidered his positions.

The first amendment – which was meant to protect freedom of religion and conscience was actually turned into a weapon by secularists to drive Christians from the public square.

After reading much about his life and what he fought for I can see where Leland was coming from.  His intentions were good.  I agree 100% with Leland that what the Anglican and Congregational state churches did to Baptists and other Christians was wrong.  But Leland and the founding fathers he influenced went too far in the matter of religious liberty.

They could have put protections in for the freedom to practice the Christian faith according to one’s conscience and they could have clearly outlawed  state churches.

They could have put moral laws in the Constitution straight from the Scriptures like do not steal, do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not commit fornication as well as protections for family rights and male headship while protecting the right of Christian churches to assemble and worship as they pleased.

Instead they set up a system of government that allowed for secularism, atheism and religious pluralism to eventually erode the unity of the nation.  This erosion of common religion among Americans will eventually lead to the end of the great experiment the founders began more than two centuries ago.

The Founding Fathers Believed Our Rights Came From God Not Government

The rights of government, the church and individuals and families do not come from government, they come from God as our American founding fathers so clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved”

The founders referred to God as our “Creator” from whom our rights come and the “Supreme judge” who will judge our intentions and actions. They were absolutely right in this regard that governments are not the source of rights but instead God instituted government to secure the rights he had given. The Scriptures state:

“4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”

Romans 13:4 (KJV)

Therefore we can rightly say that Government is there to protect our God given rights and punish those who violate the God given rights of others.  It is not the purpose of Government to grant new rights or nullify rights that God grants.  When a government becomes “destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government”.

What “Creator” and “Supreme Judge” did the American Founders Have in Mind?

Decades before the American Revolution a young John Adams wrote this in his diary:

“Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. . . . What a Eutopia – what a Paradise would this region be!” [8]

Then in the decades that followed the birth of our nation this great American founder stated the following in a letter to Thomas Jefferson:

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.” [9]


What Can We as Bible Believing Christians Do?

As believers we must take a page from the story of Joshua in the Bible.

“14 Now therefore fear the Lord, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the Lord.

15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

Joshua 24:14-15 (KJV)

America and the Western world have forsaken the God of the Bible, the God of their ancestors, for the false gods of emotionalism, feminism, secularism, humanism, egalitarianism, materialism and education.

We as believers in the God of the Bible must stand faithful in the midst of a faithless generation and follow Joshua’s example that no matter what others did – he and his family would serve the Lord.

But we must also take another page from earlier in Joshua’s story.  When the children of Israel were looking to build a new nation a powerful city lay as an obstacle in their path and that was the city of Jericho.  In Joshua chapter 6 we see that God told them he would destroy the walls of Jericho and all they had to do was follow his commands one of which was to shout:

“2 And the Lord said unto Joshua, See, I have given into thine hand Jericho, and the king thereof, and the mighty men of valour. 3 And ye shall compass the city, all ye men of war, and go round about the city once. Thus shalt thou do six days.

4 And seven priests shall bear before the ark seven trumpets of rams’ horns: and the seventh day ye shall compass the city seven times, and the priests shall blow with the trumpets. 5 And it shall come to pass, that when they make a long blast with the ram’s horn, and when ye hear the sound of the trumpet, all the people shall shout with a great shout; and the wall of the city shall fall down flat, and the people shall ascend up every man straight before him.”

Joshua 6:2-5 (KJV)

We know from the rest of the story that the Israelites followed God’s commands and God caused the walls of Jericho to fall flat to the ground.

In the same way we as Bible believing Christians must shout out against the wickedness of secular humanists, feminists and others who oppose the knowledge of God in our culture. Sadly we must even shout out against those who claim to be Christians but stand in lock step with secularists in opposing a Biblical worldview.  We cannot simply stand by in the shadows.  God calls us to be a light in a dark place.

Secular humanism, feminism, egalitarianism and a host of other false gods have fortified themselves much like Jericho did.  They control the courts, legislatures and media.  Only God can take down the stronghold of these false gods that are entrenched in our society.  But we must do our part as Christians to call it out until he does and when he does we as Bible believing Christians need to be prepared to go in after God brings the walls down.

The Fatal Flaw of Secular Humanism That Will Bring Down Its Walls

Below is the definition of Secular Humanism from

“Secular humanism is comprehensive, touching every aspect of life including issues of values, meaning, and identity. Thus it is broader than atheism, which concerns only the nonexistence of god or the supernatural. Important as that may be, there’s a lot more to life … and secular humanism addresses it.

Secular humanism is nonreligious, espousing no belief in a realm or beings imagined to transcend ordinary experience.

Secular humanism is a lifestance, or what Council for Secular Humanism founder Paul Kurtz has termed a eupraxsophy: a body of principles suitable for orienting a complete human life. As a secular lifestance, secular humanism incorporates the Enlightenment principle of individualism, which celebrates emancipating the individual from traditional controls by family, church, and state, increasingly empowering each of us to set the terms of his or her own life.” [10]

Obviously the most glaring flaw of secular humanism is its denial of the existence of God, the creator of all things including humanity.  But another flaw that comes from the denial of our creator is that secular humanists fail to recognize the natural consequences for not following God’s owner’s manual – the Bible.

It is absolutely true that God instituted the spheres of “family, church and state” and gave each of them different “controls”.  When you remove the controls of these three spheres that God created in any nation eventually that nation will fall.

It would be like having a car and going into the engine and switching all the spark plugs around and switching other plugs for various components and then expecting the engine to function properly.  If you don’t follow the design of the car, eventually it will fail.

A critically important control for any functioning nation is the control of family. If parents fail to exercise their God mandated control over their children or husbands fail to exercise their God mandated control over their wives this will cause any nation to eventually crumble.  Marriage and family form the bedrock of both churches and nations – without strong marriages and families neither of these other institutions will continue to exist.

While parents today still exercise a small amount of control over their children, husbands for the most part have completely given up all control over their wives.  They no longer lead their wives, teach their wives or discipline their wives.

The result is that because men allowed feminism to take control of our nations and because men ceded their ownership of and responsibility over both their wives and daughters we have nations in the Western world that are in moral chaos.

Marriage rates have plummeted since the early 20th century, divorce has skyrocketed, birth rates have declined and of the fewer births we have almost half of them that are born out of wedlock.

This will eventually culminate in the fall of not only the United States, but all of the Western World.  Another way of putting this is – when men abandoned their control of women (their wives and daughters) they broke God’s design for this world. They took their hands off the wheel of the car that is civilization and now that car is headed toward a cliff and eventual destruction.

When will the America as We Know It Fall?

The Roman Empire fell about two hundred years after it embraced multiracialism and multiculturalism and it lost its identity as an Italian Roman empire.  I predict that the time line will be similar for the United States.  The United States began to lose its identity as a nation of northern white European protestant Christians near the end of the 19th century.  It was not long after this that secular humanism, multiculturalism and feminism secured strong footholds in American culture.  So if we use that as our starting point it is most likely that America as a nation will crumble by the end of the 21st century or by beginning of the 22nd century.

The causes of this collapse could come from any these factors:

  1. Racial Wars – As Whites in America begin to lose their majority numbers and Africans, Hispanics and other ethnic groups rise this growing diversity of ethnicities will lead to more division and eventually war.
  2. Secular Humanists vs Christians – As Secular humanists seek to push the Christian faith further and further from American culture eventually lines will be crossed that cause Christians in mass to practice civil disobedience and then eventually military revolt against the secular powers.
  3. The falling fertility rate – America’s fertility rate is 1.84 which is well beneath the minimum 2.1 to 2.33 that needed just to keep the population rate from falling.

The third reason, falling fertility rates, is the factor which I believe will most likely be the final straw that breaks the back of Western Civilization.  Consider these other countries that have even worse fertility rates than the United States: reports that Germany’s fertility rate is 1.5, Japan is at 1.5,  the UK is at 1.8 and Greece is 1.3.  [11]  Below is a chart from that displays the sharp decline in births across the world.

A recent article from actually applauds the decline of its own species:

“So far, the prophets of overpopulation have been defeated by technology. But human ingenuity alone can never deliver a final victory in the battle to feed the world — eventually, population growth will overwhelm the Earth’s ability to provide calories. That’s why in order to put Malthus and Ehrlich finally to rest, a second component is needed — lower fertility rates. To save both the environment and themselves, humans must have fewer kids…

The world is now approaching that magic level, thanks to a phenomenon known as the fertility transition. In most countries, total fertility falls from a high level of about six or seven children to two or below, and stays there. Once smaller families become the norm in a country or region, they very rarely go back up. There are a number of theories for why this happens. The shift from agriculture to urban life means less incentive for families to have kids to work on farms. Urban life also increases the cost of raising a kid. Higher education levels for women, freeing them from traditional gender norms, are probably a big factor as well. Importantly, none of these factors are temporary.” [12]

Of all the sins Western Civilization has committed at the behest of secular humanists, environmentalists and feminists – the sin against God’s command “to be fruitful and multiply” is most likely to be the cause of their undoing.

It is a simple matter of math and the law of sowing and reaping.

“Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”

Galatians 6:7 (KJV)

If you sow less children, you will have less children.  And if you have less children and continue to have less children eventually your civilization withers up and dies.

And why is a shrinking human population a bad thing? Well think of it this way.  How will a business do if it continues year over year to have less customers? It will die. How will a government do if it continues to bring in less taxes each year with the same rates of spending? It will collapse.  People don’t think about this.  A social safety net is predicated on the fact that you have a larger population of young people to help care for the needs of its older population as well as its poor and disabled.  If the younger population is only a fraction of the size of the generations that came before it the social safety cannot be sustained.

So when will world population numbers start to plunge? The approximate year is given at

“The United Nations Population Division (UNPD) is the most reliable source of population statistics in the world, which is why we use their numbers for our videos. And, according to the UNPD, population growth will continue to slow down over the next few decades. In fact, if current trends persist, our growth will halt right around 8 billion by 2045. After that, our numbers will start to fall off, slowly at first, and then faster.” [13]

So in 27 years we will see the world wide population of the earth begin to decline matching the already declining numbers of Western nations.  2045 will most likely be the beginning of the end for America Western Civilization which will most likely fall by the end of the 21st century.

The New Democratic Christian Theonomic Republics

Out of the ashes of the fall of Western Civilization, I propose that Christians could introduce new Democratic Christian Theonomic Republics.

These new nations like the United States would be a Republic where the rights of both the government and the people are limited by a core set of laws much like our current Constitution.  As I said previously and as the American founders once said – our rights as individuals come from God and God has spoken these rights through his Word, the Bible.  Therefore this New Constitution would be based explicitly on Biblical moral law  or in other words this nation would be a theonomy. This of course would take into account progressive revelation in the Bible and the realization that the Old Covenant has been replaced with the New Covenant.

These new types of Christian nations would not be theocracies– as a theocracy is directly ruled by God through his prophets and only God himself can institute a theocracy as he did with Israel.  Also unlike the totalitarian theonomic military dictatorship in the popular fictional “Hand Maid’s Tale” these new nations would still be ruled democratically but within the limits of Biblical law upon which the government’s constitution would be based.

Totalitarian forms of civil government, even Christian forms of totalitarian civil government, violate the purposes for which God designed civil government.  Much like we in America currently have three separate but equal branches of government with different rights and powers so too God set up three separate spheres of government with those being the family, the church and the state.

And if you examine the Scriptures closely you will see that the most powerful human authorities God established are those of the father and husband with the husband being most powerful of all.  The “power” I speak of with husbands and fathers is that they have power and control over the personal decisions of their wives and children.   The government does not have this type of power and neither do church authorities.

But none of these three spheres of authority may usurp power over the others. Each must respect the limits and powers of the other.

One of the most important parts of these new Democratic Christian Theonomic Republics would be safe guards placed in their new Biblically based constitutions.

These constitutions would guard against the rise of secular humanism or feminism ever being able to rise to power again in these nations.  To do this, there would be a certain list of interpretations and applications of the Bible which no law and no amendment to this constitution could ever change.

Some example laws for Democratic Christian Theonomic Republics

Below are some example laws I could think of just off the top of my head.  I am sure there could be many more. But the most important parts of these laws would be to protect the institution of marriage and by extension the family unit which forms the building blocks for any nation.

  1. The rights of men to exercise their Christian faith and worship the God of the Bible according to their own consciences shall not be infringed upon by any government entity. The freedom to interpret and apply the Bible and principles and doctrines of the Christian faith are between a man and God. However, in order to guard against certain heresies that would undermine marriage and the family a limited number of interpretations and applications of the Scriptures must be adhered to by all who live within the boundaries of this nation.  Those interpretations and applications are spelled out in the points that follow.
  2. The husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church and the wife is to submit to her husband in everything except if he commands her to break God’s moral law or the laws of this nation that do not usurp the authority of the husband and father over his family.
  3. Children are to obey their parents as long as their parents do not command them to break God’s moral law or the laws of this nation that do not usurp the authority of the husband and father over his family.
  4. Women are the property of men. This means husbands exercise full ownership over their wives, and fathers exercise full ownership of their daughters and sons. Their ownership over their sons would terminate upon the son reaching the age of manhood.
  5. A man may not marry a woman without her father’s permission. If her father is dead or the woman is a widow or divorced he should seek out another male relative of the woman under whose authority she has placed herself. Only in rare cases where a woman presents proof to a fellow kinsman defender that her father is unlawfully holding her back from all marriage may a judge decide to forfeit the rights of the father over his daughter.
  6. If a father or mother are found guilty of engaging in incestuous relations with any of their children they shall be banned from seeing their children again as well as punished in other ways as the judges see fit. If the guilty party is the father, then the judge shall grant temporary ownership of the children to the mother until she can find a new husband.
  7. A woman may not hold any position which gives her authority over men whether it be public office, in the work place, the church or any other place in society.
  8. Only adult men who are professing Christians may vote in elections. A woman, whether she is a professing Christian or not, may not vote in any election whether it be local, state or national elections or anything to do with church decision making.
  9. While all married women are under the authority of their husbands, previously married women whether they be widows or divorced should immediately place themselves back under the authority of their father or if he is dead they should find the closest adult male relative under whose authority they may find protection and guidance.
  10. Women may not own property and if a woman comes into an inheritance this inheritance comes under the ownership of her husband. If she is without a husband, then this inheritance would remain in a trust until she is wed to a husband to whom she may give herself and her inheritance.
  11. Only women who make vows of celibacy in service to God may enter higher education. Even then their higher education will be restricted to fields which involve caring for the sick like nursing, nurses aids, medical assistants or the care and education of children such as elementary school teachers.
  12. If a man willfully and in full neglect of his duties fails to provide his wife with food, clothing and shelter or denies his wife her conjugal rights in marriage she will seek out a kinsman defender to represent her cause to the judges. If the judges agree that willful and intentional neglect in any of these areas has been committed by the husband the judges shall declare the husband’s ownership over his wife to be forfeited and she is free to ask for a divorce.  If the neglect extended to the children as well the wife may request that the husband’s ownership of his children be transferred to her until she can find a new husband.
  13. If a man abuses his wife or children by causing serious bodily injury or life threatening injuries to them or if he willfully places his family in life threatening positions in neglect of his duty to protect them the wife may seek out a kinsman defender to represent her cause to the judges. If the judges agree that the husband rather than protecting his family from harm, has actually placed them in harm by his actions the judges shall declare the husband’s ownership over his wife to be forfeited and she is free to ask for a divorce.  If the abuse extended to the children as well the wife may request that the husband’s ownership of his children be transferred to her until she can find a new husband.
  14. A man may only divorce his wife for adultery or his wife’s denial of his conjugal rights. In either of these cases the woman is sent away without anything but the clothing on her back and she retains no rights to her children as her husband maintains full ownership of them.  If adultery is the cause of the divorce, the husband may ask a judge to impose a prison sentence as the judge sees it upon his wife.
  15. The right of men to keep and bear arms to secure their persons, their wives, their children, their homes and their other possessions may not be infringed upon by any government entity.
  16. The right of men to pursue through work or ingenuity their own private property including but not limited to lands and women shall not be infringed by any government entity.
  17. The government shall encourage the formation of private charities for various types of assistance (food, medical care and housing) to the poor. All government approved charities will be required to prove that at least 90 percent of all the funds they take in go directly helping the poor and no more than 10 percent goes to their overhead. Churches will be highly encouraged to participate as private charities. Still penalties and criminal prosecution may be pursued against groups that act as charities but keep a large part of the proceeds for themselves.
  18. Each man must present proof when he pays his taxes each year that he has donated at least 3.5 percent of his gross income to charitable causes whether it be a local church, a local soup kitchen, homeless shelters or some other cause which helps the poor. If the money was donated to his church, he must prove that the money went to help the poor. Charitable giving to support the operations of the church and its ministries to the poor must be separated.   Failure to donate at least 3.5 percent of one’s income to the poor through various approved charities will result in a 10 percent tax penalty collected by the government. These tax penalties for failure to give to the poor will be redistributed to approved charitable organizations.
  19. The government may only tax for the purposes of providing for law enforcement, public education, public infrastructure, and national defense. The only exception to this rule is the tax penalty allowed for failure to give to charitable organizations that help the poor. Other than this the government is restricted from taxing for the purposes of redistribution of wealth between various income groups.
  20. All public education is to be conducted in support of Biblical teachings. Only professing Christians may teach religion, philosophy or history programs. If a non-Christian teaches another type of course such as business, science or engineering they may not teaching opinions or philosophies which contradict the Christian faith.
  21. While no one may be forced to become a Christian or to attend a Christian church, all citizens of the nation must follow the moral laws of the Bible and also the laws of this nation which find their basis and authority in the Bible.
  22. Non-Christians including those who adhere to other faiths or those who adhere to no faith at all will be tolerated in small numbers provide they do not present a threat to the unity of the Christian faith of the nation. If the number of non-Christians rises to levels which the government deems too high or any one group of non-Christians disturbs the peace and unity in a local area, state or throughout the nation government authorities shall have power to remedy this situation through imprisonment or deportation to a non-Christian nation.

A Word to Non-Christians Reading This

If you are a Muslim reading this then what I have wrote here will make a lot of sense since the vast majority of Muslims do not believe in freedom of religion in a nation as most Americans believe in. But to secular humanists reading this the questions they will ask are “what if you took these same rules and applied them to Muslim nation, Hindu nation or some other non-Christian nation? Does the ideology that a nation is built around common religion, common ethnicity and common language still apply to them?

Before I give the answer to your question I want to share with you a statement from the Apostle Paul that is found in his first letter to the Corinthians:

“20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.”

I Corinthians 9:20-21 (KJV)

So in the words of the Apostle Paul – I am going to answer your questions on your level as a secular humanist (one who is does not believe in the law of God).

The answer to your questions is YES.  The same formula of common religion, common ethnicity and common language applies to all nations whether the majority of its citizens are Christian or not.  If the common religion, common ethnicity and common language of a nation is not protected by its government that nation will eventually fall.  All three are necessary for the survival, stability and security of any nation.

I have worked alongside many Muslims and Hindus over the years as a software developer.  While I consider their faiths to be false because I consider the Bible’s description of the character of God and the Christian faith to be far superior to those faiths, I will admit in the vast majority of cases they have strong marriages and a strong family ethic.  If a religion, even a false religion, promotes the sanctity marriage and family and a nation protects that religion as the common religion of the people it will in most cases lead to a more stable and secure nation.

Secular humanism, which in my opinion is actually a religion of sorts with the natural world and humanity as its god, does not pass this test.  Secular humanism leads to the weakening of marriages and the family unit.  Therefore even if a nation decided that it would be a secular humanist nation and it outlawed all religion (as many communist countries did) trying to unite the people around the common philosophy of secular humanism it would eventually fail.  The reason is that secular humanism by overemphasizing individualism and trying to take off the controls of the family actually weakens marriage and the family and in doing so it undermines its own society.


We can look back to the history of nations and see that nations that are not united around common religion, common ethnicity and common language ultimately fail.  Not only must nations share and protect these things but they must also promote the sanctify of marriage and the family as the building blocks of society, otherwise they too will perish.

The Christian faith and the Christian Bible are vastly superior to all other religions and ideologies in giving us a blue print for the sustainability of marriage and the family and thus the sustainability of nations.

The Bible tells us in Psalm 33:12 Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord… but it also tells us in the book of Acts 5:29 that We ought to obey God rather than men. Only a Democratic Christian Theonomic Republic whose Constitution and laws are founded in the Bible and which protects the Christian faith from non-Christian interference can allow Christians to live in a culture where they never have to practice Acts 5:29.

America will not be an exception to history’s rule and neither will the rest of the Western world.  We as Christians must prepare our children who can then prepare our grandchildren for the future that is coming unless God directly intervenes in this world before that time.

UPDATE 4/18/2017

I have added some additional quotes(with references below) to statements from John Leland who was a highly influential Baptist preacher. He sought religious liberty and protections after Baptists in the colonies had been so badly treated by the state Anglican and Congregational churches.  He was one of the greatest influences on  Madison and the other founders in creating the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.


[1] V. Davis, “America: History’s Exception”, National Review, 2017. [Online]. Available:

[2] John Leland, arranged by L.F. Greene, “The Writings of the Late Elder John Leland: Including Some Events in His Life”, G.W. Wood, 1845  [Available as Free Ebook Online]. Available: Pg. 118

[3] Ibid, Pg. 184

[4] Ibid, Pg. 278

[5] Dwayne Hastings, “Religious freedom champion John Leland also active in public policy, Land says”, Baptist Press, 2000. [Online]. Available:

[6] John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles Little and James Brown, 1841), Vol. III, p. 421, diary entry for July 26, 1796.
[7] Zephaniah Swift, A System of Laws of the State of Connecticut (Windham: John Byrne, 1796), Vol. II, pp. 323-324.
[8] John Adams, Works, Vol. II, pp. 6-7, diary entry for February 22, 1756.

[9] Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIII, p. 292-294. In a letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813.

[10] “What Is Secular Humanism?” [Online]. Available:

[11] “Fertility rate, total (births per woman)” Data.Worldbank.Org, 2018. [Online]. Available:

[12] N. Smith, “The Population Bomb Has Been Defused”,, 2018. [Online]. Available:

[13] “Episode 5: 7 Billion People: Will Everyone Please Relax?” [Online]. Available:

27 thoughts on “The Case for Christian Nationalism

  1. One thing that is seldom understood about God’s design and order is that everyone CAN be blessed while operating in it. Though humans chose the effects of sin and selfishness, I know that blessing can be had for husbands, wives, and children who follow His order and ways. To the world, this concept is foreign because it is at odds with culture, though many are starting to see the results of following culture (broken families, divorce, adultery, whore mongering, destruction, misery, brokenness).

    I certainly agree that husbands have biblical ownership and authority over their wife and children, but the relationship is much more complicated than that. A husband is also responsible for leading, teaching, nourishing, protecting, investing in, and growing his family. Like the servant who has been trusted with much, a husband has been trusted with much! This is not a small task, though many husbands do not have the guts for it. The bible says that a husband should love his wife in such a way as to present her to himself blemish free. This will involve encouragement at times, discipline at times, and costly love at times. It also says that he should be considerate and understanding. He should be careful to not embitter his children.

    The goal a husband should have for his wife and daughter’s is that they should become ALL that God made them to be. He should invest and encourage them to become women of God, who have a Godly heart, who work hard for their families, and who, because of Christ, places herself under her husband’s authority.

    I want to address a lazy approach to biblical gender roles that makes proper biblical gender roles look bad. My wife and I were talking about this this very morning. We typically see a group of wives that obviously belong to a certain Christian church based on the way they dress. I’m not going to say which one, it would be one known for being firm about gender roles. Ironically, this group of wives consistently behaves and treats others horribly. My immediate thought is that they probably behave one way with their husbands or in church, but completely another way outside of that sphere. My next thought is that their husbands are doing a terrible job of leading their wives to Godly behavior – they are representing themselves, their families, and Jesus poorly. My next thought is that perhaps the staunch approach may not be the ideal way to produce the fruit. …or perhaps it is not ideal for every wife.

    I am as opposed to feminism as anyone could possibly be, and I am so tired of hearing about female empowerment (which seeks to throw God’s order out / ironically ruining women’s lives and leaving them un-empowered). Women should not be trying to be men or usurp men. They should be trying to be Godly women. With that said, a woman’s proper place is not down, nor is it above or equal to her husband. Her place is to be lifted by her husband. We need to remember the Proverbs 31 woman (whose husband has full confidence in her AND at the same time she is fully under the authority of) is wise and buys a field.

  2. If we force women into a position where they can only depend on a man be it her husband, her father, or another male relative aren’t you interfering with the concept of free will? If women aren’t allowed to own property how does it benefit them to inherit it and couldn’t the men they give it to turn on them and use the woman’s inheritance selfishly? Also would the male family members be legally obligated to provide for the female relatives and if they decide to act in their own selfish interests will they be punished? The biggest concern is with that nagging topic of abuse if we look at history you can see that rules don’t guarantee protection from tyranny on any scale. By removing a woman’s right to speak on her own behalf history would eventually move back to a time when they deemed incapable of doing so, seen as lesser beings, and their word did not hold the same merit of that of a man’s. I believe we can agree that during that time there were probably copious women that suffered some sort of wrong doing but couldn’t get justice because they were fighting a huge boy’s club. Because they aren’t able to own property you would have women moving from pillar to post every time a husband or male relative passes. I would like to look at the word “freed”. Let’s stick to physical abuse black eyes, broken ribs, missing teeth, scratches etc. Once women have been reduced to this level . . . Should we expect all men to do right by them in these situations, well we expect them to but will they always? The word “freed” does not imply that the power to walk away is with the victim. To top it all off these women would be less likely to seek refuge because they would be leaving with literally nothing and without their children. Is it worth it to take women back to that world? Also why would a woman only be granted temporary custody or ownership of her own children?

  3. Tamara,

    My law number 16:

    “The right of men to pursue through work or ingenuity their own private property including but not limited to lands and women shall not be infringed by any government entity.”

    You are half right. The law does mildly speak to polygamy but its not talking about conquering lands. Its talking about the right to purchase and own private property with one’s own money that they have earned either through work or ingenuity(inventing things, creating things…ect).

    But I think a law on polygamy would have to be made clearer than that – “All men shall have the right to have more than one wife as long as they get the permission of the woman’s father or other adult male that is her authority and they can rightly provide her with food, clothing, shelter and sex”. In other words i think the law would have to be clear in some way that you must demonstrate the ability to provide for wives and not depend on charity to support them.

  4. Derick,
    Your Statement:

    “If we force women into a position where they can only depend on a man be it her husband, her father, or another male relative aren’t you interfering with the concept of free will?”

    The concept of free will in the Bible is not what our concept of free will is. Our free will is a limited to the bounds of God’s law. God has place different responsibilities and restrictions on men than he has on women. God’s design is that women should indeed be dependent on men just as all of mankind should be dependent on God.

    Your Statement:

    “The biggest concern is with that nagging topic of abuse if we look at history you can see that rules don’t guarantee protection from tyranny on any scale. By removing a woman’s right to speak on her own behalf history would eventually move back to a time when they deemed incapable of doing so, seen as lesser beings, and their word did not hold the same merit of that of a man’s. I believe we can agree that during that time there were probably copious women that suffered some sort of wrong doing but couldn’t get justice because they were fighting a huge boy’s club.”

    I absolutely agree with that going back to Biblical laws regarding the place of women and removing the new rights modern society has given them would definitely expose women to much more abuse than they are currently exposed to today. It would leave some women with tyrannical husbands who do not love them as Christ loves his church. It would leave other women with men who simply married them for their inheritance and again these men may have no intention of loving their wife as Christ loves the Church. It would force women to choose between leaving their husband and having their children (if she has just cause to leave, but he has not harmed the children in anyway).

    But my first response to this is – this is in line with the Word of God. We cannot break God’s law regarding the position of women to men in order to protect women from potential abuse.

    But even for those that do not accept the Bible as the Word of God (our secular humanist friends as well as liberal Christians) there is a logical reason for removing women’s new rights that have been given to them over the last 150 years.

    Trying to protect women from every kind of abusive relationship situation by granting them full equality with men, equal rights to their children in divorce, and allowing them to own property and take property in divorce has lead to another kind of abuse – the abuse of the institution of marriage itself. The attempt to protect women from abuse, while perhaps having good motives, has lead to the decimation of the family unit and marriage itself. This in turn will lead to the destruction of Western civilization.

    God’s way is not only right, but it is logical.

    So, we must ask ourselves this – is it better for some women to suffer abuse at the hands of evil husbands or fathers but keep the institution of marriage strong and in tact with children being raised by their biological parents or it is better to protect individual women but in the process of doing that we sacrifice the institution of marriage itself?

    What is best for society as a whole is more important than protecting individuals from the potential of abuse because the very protections we put in place to protect from abuse can be used as weapons of abuse themselves.

  5. Yes she does. I would say that while she owns things, she (herself, and everything she owns) ALSO belongs to her husband. Just as I myself and everything I own ALSO belongs to the Lord…

  6. livinginblurredlines,

    If a servant goes and purchases something for his master does that make the item(land, or other item) his? The answer is no.

    In Numbers 27 we read the story of the five daughters of Zelophehad of the tribe of Manasseh. Zelophehad died having no sons and his daughters were worried that their father’s name would die out because of this so here is the request they made to Moses:

    “Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he hath no son? Give unto us therefore a possession among the brethren of our father.”
    Numbers 27:1-11 (KJV)

    A lot of Christian feminists try and use this story to falsely claim these women were fighting for women’s rights. But if you read the story in context they were simply trying to preserve their father’s name. They recognized if he had sons the inheritance would have gone to the sons and not them(Numbers 27:1-11). In Numbers 36 the tribal leaders of Manasseh made Moses assure them the daughters of Zelophehad would be required to marry men of the tribe of Manasseh. This makes perfect sense when you think of the kinsman redeemer. If a man dies and his wife bore him no sons another man would redeem his wife and their first child would take on the name of the dead husband to preserve his line(as with Ruth and Boaz).

    In the same way when these women married men of the tribe of Manasseh they would do EXACTLY what they told Moses in Numbers 27 which was to make sure their father’s name did not die out. This means their husband would make sure their first son would take their father’s name. This was the price of him marrying them and getting their inheritance. But even then the husband only kept the inheritance in trust. When the sons were men they would take on the inheritance of their grandfather whose name they bore.

    The point in all this is this – whenever women inherited anything it was only TEMPORARY and as soon as they married ownership would pass to their husband or to their sons. The reason for this is this – money and property represent power, independence and freedom. God did not grant these things to women and he made women for men. If you give women these things as they have today – look at the havoc they have brought upon society? Look at the destruction of the institution of marriage because women can own things and don’t need men anymore? They don’t have to marry for survival anymore and if they do marry they can easily leave and take half or more of their husband’s property. This was never meant to be in God’s design.

  7. Growing up the way I did and in the community itself, I did not see anything wrong with what I was seeing. The guidelines you have here are very similar to what I was in the process of learning but I had been able to see it quite a bit up until my wife and I decided it was best for us to leave. A former friend of mine got married 2 years before I did, his wife was very quiet and she did not like to be left alone with men unless it was her father, or brothers.

    If she spoke to them she preferred distance between them, no touching if any kind, no eye contact and other people had to be around. One day He told me why she acted that way and his answer blew me away. He said “she was walking through the courtyard and fell, and one my buddies went to help her but she claims he wasn’t helping but instead stuck his hand up under her dress so she slapped him. Well when she came to tell me my friend already did and it seemed like the truth to me because she waited a few hours to tell me. Her excuse was she was so upset and didn’t want to make a big deal about it.

    That didn’t make sense to me because no woman would be able calm themselves after such an ordeal so it was at that point I new she was lying so I slapped her a few times for lying to me. So for the past 2 years she just avoids being alone with men unless it’s her father or there are other people around. You know that girls exaggetate and sometimes even lie”. I was floored. I see that in these rules so it’s hard for me to say it’s worth it to return to that way of life. Her side of the story did not matter not because she cries wolf, or has a history of lying but because she is a woman. I hate to say this but that isn’t fair and it is sad. I could not imagine living in an environment where I’m powerless to save myself from that kind of situation and

    I think that the fear everyone woman has if the law changes well so will the mindset of the people especially the men in control and it does not look healthy. I saw my mother in-law get pushed over in her garden because she was not moving fast enough so she could start cooking. Mind you no one was helping her gather the food and they have 4 boys that could have but no her husband got up walked over and shoved her with his foot. These men thought like this, and would sing their wives praises all day but the way treated them did not convey the same message. It’s tough to say let’s go back in time when they are safer now.

  8. There was this german guy once who also wanted a country with only one ethnicity. I can’t remember his name though.

  9. Deusnaoexiste,

    Your Statement:

    “There was this german guy once who also wanted a country with only one ethnicity. I can’t remember his name though.”

    I was waiting to see who would be the first multicultural, multiracial globalist who hates nationalism to come and equate ethno-nationalism with Nazism.

    The German guy you refer to(Hitler) did not just want Germany to have one minor variation of Caucasians. He actually wanted his minor variation of Caucasians to rule the world and exterminate all of what he believed where lesser races. He was not deporting Jews – he was massacring them by the millions. If you actually knew history just about every nation in the world was dominated by one ethnicity. It is what makes for stable nation sir.

    You think America has racial strife now? Wait 30 years when you have riots and cities burning and tell me how great multi racialism is in a country. But you don’t have to murder minorities or say that your minor human variation(which what an ethnicity is) is superior to all others and they must be eradicated. Contrary to what liberal teach today – deportation is not equivalent to murder.

    I hope that helps everyone have a better understanding the difference between ethno-nationalism and Nazism.

  10. BGR,
    You clearly feel passionate about your convictions and I doubt that I am going to change your mind.
    However, I think that for your sake and for the sake of others like you I would like to use this opportunity to point out why atheists, agnostics, and secular humanists dislike hardcore religious believers so much. Or perhaps I should use a better term; religious fundamentalists.
    The components of the proposal that you have outlined obviously mean a complete alteration and abandonment of the freedoms we currently enjoy especially in the area of women’s rights. You would reduce women down to the mere property of the men in their lives. I will give you credit for being upfront about this. That is certainly refreshing, as I’m used to most fundamentalists who beat around the bush and lie about what they really want.
    Now let’s be clear about something, the only reason why you believe in the subjugation of women is because of your religious convictions.
    The reason why that is so irksome to unbelievers like myself is that we don’t see any convincing proof that christianity is true. And then we run into people like yourself who want to force us into social conditions that we see as completely unacceptable and what’s worse is that your convictions don’t come from a carefully thought out philosophy or policy but from a religion which does not have the facts backing it up.
    I am trying to be diplomatic. But just try to imagine how irritating this is to us. Imagine if a Muslim or a hindu came to you and tried to completly change your way of life and when you asked their reasons they said “because our god said so.”
    That would royally annoy you.
    Well now you know. I hope that this comment helped illuminate our perspective and I hope that I came across as polite and respectful.
    Thank you for allowing me to comment (if I make it through)

  11. Dane,

    What I have been trying to communicate here is that there will be abuses with either system. There are massive abuses today just in different ways. What do you say to two teenage boys and a teenage girl who are watching their mother’s third marriage break down and she is looking to divorce their second step dad. What do you say to them when they say “marriage does not work!”? Statistically speaking those teens are RIGHT. Marriage as we have redefined as of the mid 19th and early 20th century has utterly failed.

    The failure of marriage affects every part of society including increasing poverty and dependency on government in developed nations. When you give women equality with men and you give women a choice in child bearing there are less marriages, and among the fewer marriages that occur a huge amount of divorce, fewer children born and of the fewer children born nearly half our born of wedlock without a mom and dad to raise them. These are the FACTS.

    So if you ask me was the old system perfect? It would be perfect as God designed it if sin did not poison it. The reason that some men abuse their authority over their wives and do not show them the love, grace mercy that God wants them to is because of sin. But despite the corrupting of God’s perfect plan for marriage by sin, the old system promoted marriage and child bearing and the new system today does not.

    So what is more important – protecting women from potential abuse in some marriages(not all and I would argue not even most) or protecting the continuance of the human race?

    All the freedoms we have given women that run contrary to the Bible in name of protecting women from abuse have actually brought abuse upon the institution of marriage itself and marriage as an institution has been decimated and the world’s population will begin to decline soon. America and the western world would already be declining if they were not importing people from 3rd world nations who populations also will decline soon.

    So which do you want? to temporarily protect women from potential abuse by men while watching nations and the human race slowly shrivel up in the process or do you want to do what is best for strengthening marriage and the family while knowing it will leave women exposed to abuse in some cases?

  12. Jordan,
    As you can imagine I have received a ton of emails from non-Christians lately based not only on this article but also on a previous one that was reviewed by a popular atheist YouTube channel run by Rachel Oates.
    I appreciate your respectful inquiry and I decided to choose your comments out of the pile that I have and try to answer some of your concerns.

    You are right that obviously the foundation for what I believe comes from my faith and my belief that the Bible is the Word of God. However, that does not mean as you say that “your convictions don’t come from a carefully thought out philosophy or policy but from a religion which does not have the facts backing it up.”

    I highly encourage you to read more of my site and you will see that my convictions actually come from a very thought out philosophy and policy and they do have facts to back them up. I am not talking here about the existence of God. There are plenty of Christian sites dedicated solely to that discussion. What I am taking about is facts concerning the impact of granting women in mass social and economic equality with men as the Western world started to do since about the mid-19th century.

    First it started with giving them more rights in divorce, including property rights and child custody rights and eventually culminated in woman’s suffrage (first wave feminism) which pave the way for second wave feminism in the 1960s.

    Since second wave feminism challenged women’s control over their own bodies and the entire concept of marriage itself with husbands as the head the following things have occurred:

    Men and women marry far less (since relationships between men and women are now based on feelings and not duty as they once were) :

    “The marriage rate in the United States is continuing its decades-long downward slide, with fewer American women than ever getting married and others waiting longer to wed, according to a new report.
    The marriage rate has fluctuated in the past, with dips in the 1930s and 1960s, but it has been in steady decline since the 1970s.
    Now, researchers report that the marriage rate has dropped to a new low of 31.1, meaning there are about 31 marriages in the U.S. for every 1,000 unmarried women, researchers found. In 1950, that number was 90.2. In 1920, it was 92.3.”

    When they do marry the divorce, rate is nearly 50 percent with women initiating 70 percent of divorces

    “Some new data about divorce and non-marital breakups contains an unexpected finding, and I think it underscores the fact that we’re in the midst of an ongoing evolution in what people want and seek in their romantic relationships. The study, based on a survey of over 2000 heterosexual couples, (link is external) found that women initiated nearly 70% of all divorces.”

    About 40 percent of children are born out of wedlock

    “For example, when President Lyndon Johnson launched the War on Poverty in 1964, 93 percent of children born in the United States were born to married parents. Since that time, births within marriage have declined sharply. In 2007, only 59 percent of all births in the nation occurred to married couples…The decline in marriage and growth in out-of-wedlock births is not a teenage issue; it is the result of a breakdown in relationships between young adult men and women.”

    World fertility rates falling below replacement levels

    “The total fertility rate is just an estimate, based on the number of children women have been having. When the rate is lower than about 2.1, it means total population will eventually stabilize and decline.
    The world is now approaching that magic level, thanks to a phenomenon known as the fertility transition. In most countries, total fertility falls from a high level of about six or seven children to two or below, and stays there. Once smaller families become the norm in a country or region, they very rarely go back up. There are a number of theories for why this happens. The shift from agriculture to urban life means less incentive for families to have kids to work on farms. Urban life also increases the cost of raising a kid. Higher education levels for women, freeing them from traditional gender norms, are probably a big factor as well. Importantly, none of these factors are temporary

    As I said before – my primary argument for imposing Biblical gender roles on society and taking away the new rights granted to women since the mid-19th century is a religious and theological one. But that does not mean there is not evidence outside the Bible for the proposition that gender roles work better for the sustainability of nations and the human race.

    On the last article from Bloomberg which not only concedes falling fertility rates around the world, but actually relishes in it – I have a disagreement with their analysis. Freeing women from traditional gender norms is not just “a big factor” as they write – but it the largest and most massive factor involved with women in developed nations having less children.

    Granting women equal rights with men has lead to less marriage, women having fewer children and of the fewer children they have almost half of them are born of wedlock. Let’s put aside for a moment the cost to governments of single mothers with children and also the impact on crime. Let just look at the falling fertility rates because women now have a choice in if they marry, whom they marry, can easily divorce and can choose when and if they have children thanks to modern birth control.

    The article from Bloomberg concedes something I could have given you 20 different sources for. In developed countries where women have full rights and education and full choice over their lives the fertility rate is lower than 2.1. And once they drop below that rate “they rarely go back up” which is also true. Why don’t they go up? Because the biggest factor that causes them to drop – women’s choice over having children is not going to change. Because women can choose – they marry less and have less children. They concentrate on their own life and happiness with little thought of their decisions on the humanity itself.

    Now the Bloomberg article writer like a lot of environmentalists thinks worldwide population decline is a wonderful thing. In fact, they think it will save the planet – Again I am not going to go down that rabbit trail as there are many sites dedicated to debunking that. Let’s just say for arguments sake that they are right and that we need world population to go down for the sake of the planet.

    So over centuries we have get the whole world to be developed and we have a utopia of women having complete equality with men – but the world fertility rate remains below 2.1 as a result of women having a choice. So, each generation will have fewer children than the next and so on. As the world population continues to dwindle businesses and nations must adjust to few customers, and fewer citizens. Ghost towns rise up all over the world.

    Real estate plunges because you have fewer people who need houses each year. Social welfare systems are stressed because you have fewer young people to support the older people. And while women still have a choice the population gets smaller and smaller and smaller.

    At some point you have to take away women’s choice and force them to have more children or else humanity will die. Some might say – “maybe we will just grow children in test tubes”. But then who will raise them? Will we raise them in big government run facilities?

    I say all this to say – while my argument is primarily theological – you still have the fertility crisis to address which is mostly attributable to women’s rights destroying the traditional institution of marriage.

  13. Jordan, I understand your points. Something I always find interesting is that even in non-Christian marriages, husbands and wives often choose to follow traditional gender roles simply because they simply work better. To put it in non-Christian terminology, they seem to be more aligned with nature where the male is dominant and female cares for the children. Though many deny this today, most sensible people see that men and women, while having similarities, are very different physically, emotionally, relationally. It just is what it is. Non-Christians would assign this to “nature” or what is obvious about our bodies and/or characteristics, but I would assign this to “God design” which affected our bodies and nature.

    Something stuck out to me in your post – you said that you don’t see any convincing proof that Christianity is true. When I was looking, but not yet believing, this was the direction I took with God. I am interested, but I need you to prove it to me. It was all about me being satisfied about God. It was a thought that put me above God in the drivers seat expecting Him to answer to me. What I came to find out is that it really is not about me at all.

    The proof I was demanding was literally everything my eyes see – all of creation. His world, His creatures, His people. Yes, the world finds other reasons for the existence of all of these things, but that doesn’t mean those reasons are correct, or even make sense logically. There is a theme here however, the more wrong ideas that people accept and align themselves to, the harder it is for them to accept God and all that He has done for us. Women’s right are one such issue. Women will never be equal to men for the simple reason that we are not equal. We are physically and emotionally different and each has their own nature.

    I will give you one truth however, men and women are BOTH heirs in the Kingdom of God though we have different roles on Earth. If there was ever a women’s equality that mattered, it is this! God says we are co-heirs in heaven. If you measure God through human thinking about what you think is right, He will not reveal Himself. I would suggest that you approach Him differently. It makes sense that His ways are not our ways – remember that He fashioned us from dust and breathed life into us.

    For all the advances in science, they have never been able to create even a single living cell from non-living matter. They can butcher His creation and show up and take credit, but we need to consider our true and honest place in this universe He made before we can ever begin to approach Him. Only when we approach Him from the right heart and attitude will He reveal Himself to us. Try something – pray for 30 days no matter how it feels day to day. Pray for God to reveal Himself to you in a meaningful way. Do it in the name of Jesus. Do not put any of your beliefs or expectations on Him, just ask Him to reveal Himself.

  14. I know this would be pure fantasy, but I wish there was a community,subdivision/private town wherein all members would espouse these truths contained in this article.. Where traditional gender roles prevail, and the men of the community would lead in both the community matters, the church, and in the home. Where us women would have others of the mindset to fellowship with, pray with, and encourage each other to be Proverbs 31 women.

    The toughest part of this lifestyle, for us, is to feel like you are “alone”/different in your community, in your church, and even in your extended family.

  15. Jamie,

    I get people writing me about that “feeling alone” feeling all the time – those who want to follow God’s Word in all areas including Biblical gender roles(understanding progressive revelation of course and the fact the Old Covenant has been replace by the New).

    This is the passage I point them to that has always been an encouragement to me in those times in my life when I have felt like you:

    “I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
    2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
    4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.”
    Romans 11:1-5 (KJV)

    Just as God reserved to himself a faithful remnant of Jewish believers in Christ, so too he has reserved to himself a faithful remnant of Christians today who follow his doctrines concerning Biblical gender roles.

    But our faith is most demonstrated when in fact we do feel alone in our community or church and we stay strong and stay the course.

    And as far as fantasy goes – right now in 2018 America getting society to go along with this I agree is pure fantasy short of God himself coming down and causing a worldwide revival. I am fully cognizant that most women are not going to give up their rights, even in the face of societal collapse. Society will have to collapse first under the weight of its own bad decisions and when we see allowing women to lead selfish and self-centered lives has lead to the fall of our nations they won’t have rights anymore. The world will return to the natural order it once had. Because God’s ways are not only right and righteous – they are logical. If the vast majority of women do not stay home, have at least 3 to 4 children and raise those children as mothers eventually society crumbles.

    So unless Christ comes back before this time – there is coming a day within the next century or so where what I am saying here won’t look like fantasy anymore. Feminism may deny God’s design for gender roles, but they can’t deny a little thing called math. If women continue having less than the amount of children needed to replace the population and also allow for even modest growth the western nations will collapse.

  16. Caroline,

    Your Question:

    “What about women who are unable to have children? No point in getting married so where would they fit in such a society you envision?”

    The fact that some women as well as some men are infertile is the same reason human beings are born with a variety of physical and mental defects – because we live in a sin cursed world. But infertile women would still have a place and could even still marry. Under Biblical law polygamy is allowed. If a man married a woman and she turned out to be infertile he could just marry a second wife so as to have children to carry on his name. Even if the woman knew ahead of any potential marriage that she was infertile this would not stop her from getting married. While God wants us to be fruitful and multiply- he only calls us to do what we are capable of doing. An infertile woman can no more bear children than a cripple can walk unless God miraculously intervenes.

    But also a woman who is unable to have children could dedicate her life in celibate service to God. I talked about this in this article. I talked about allowing women who made vows of celibacy to pursue certain higher education fields and to be allowed to be nurses, nurses aides, medical aides and other caregiver roles. I talked about them being allowed to be elementary school teachers working with small children. So there would be many ways infertile women could still have a great part to play in society under the model I have talked about here.

  17. Anm1,
    Your statement
    “Something stuck out to me in your post – you said that you don’t see any convincing proof that Christianity is true. When I was looking, but not yet believing, this was the direction I took with God. I am interested, but I need you to prove it to me. It was all about me being satisfied about God. It was a thought that put me above God in the drivers seat expecting Him to answer to me. What I came to find out is that it really is not about me at all. The proof I was demanding was literally everything my eyes see – all of creation. His world, His creatures, His people. Yes, the world finds other reasons for the existence of all of these things, but that doesn’t mean those reasons are correct, or even make sense logically. ”


    Thank you for your gracious reply to me, but I would like to take this opportunity to illustrate our point of view on this. As you said ” The proof I was demanding was literally everything my eyes see – all of creation. His world, His creatures, his people.” The problem with your logic is that even if god did create the world how do you know that it is yours that did it? Every religion has a creation story.

  18. BGR,
    Thank you as well for taking the time to reply to me.
    You are right that the birthrate is falling. And you are right that much of it has to do with women’s choices.
    However, the birth rate is falling all over the world. Not just in western feminist societies. As the world becomes more urban and people leave the farm, children become a heavy economic burden. That may not sound nice but it is the truth. I am sure that their are many men who wish to limit their family size as well.
    I used to work with a man from Mexico. I believe he is Catholic, but I could be wrong, anyways he has three children and doesn’t want anymore.
    With every social trend there are good things and bad things that go along with it.
    As women are given control over their own fertility a country’s wealth and standard of living go up. Are their problems with a declining birth rate? Yes. But there are good things as well.

  19. Jordan – I am merely a man whom Jesus loves and has shown His grace to. I will fully admit there are a lot of questions I do not have answers to. If God wanted to be down here in all His glory, before everyone, He would be. My theory is that He wants those who choose Him without that. This is the mystery of faith. Let me say that Jesus changes everything. Be well!

  20. Jordan,

    I will agree that urbanization has effected the fertility rate as well and that is because of another problem and that is materialism. Back not to long ago people raised 4 and 5 children families in 1000 sq foot homes. They had one car and most did not go on fancy vacations. Today we are so materialistic. Today people insist on having 2000 and 3000 sq foot homes. Every family must have two new cars in the drive way and even the teens must each have their own car. Everyone in the family has to have a cell phone, a tablet and a laptop. Families must be able to take expensive vacations each year and they are expected to pay many thousands of dollars for higher education(which is another scam but that is another discussion). We have made life more expensive because of our priorities and values which I would argue are wrong.

    I would absolutely admit that part of this problem is men seeing women working as great because they get twice the income and then still claim having kids is an economic burden. Children up until this century were seen as a gift from God – even by the poor and less fortunate.

    So I am glad to hear that you admit that problem of the falling birth rates – I have yet to have an atheist write to me admitting that is a problem. All them(except you) say it is a great thing because they believe the world’s population needs to shrink. But then none of them have the answer as to how far it needs to shrink(which I disagree that it does) and what do you do when the population gets too small because women have a choice and some men are too materialistic and like their women working? How do you handle the selfishness of westerners when it comes to having and raising children? Eventually you will run out of people.

    No atheist, secular humanist or enviromentalist that has written me will even concede the future problem if fertility rates do not rise again or how to solve it.

  21. BGR,
    I said that there are problems with a shrinking population. In your reply you make it sound like it will be the end of the world. I think you said “humanity will die”. Humanity will not die out. Humanity has been through world wars, the Black Plague, and many other terrible things. We are an adaptable species. While a population decline does have its drawbacks it will not be the end of humanity. With the rise of
    Automation I don’t think we have to worry to much about a declining population.

  22. Dear BGR,
    I like your articles and appreciate the message you have about God’s design for men and women. I’ve read your entire blog and really feel that you speak the truth. However, I would disagree that abused women in a society like this are acceptable as collateral damage for the greater good. Instead, I think it would be the responsibility of the men in government to protect women as a whole by developing a legal process through which abused women could find relief. Just my thoughts.

  23. Just to clarify, I meant a way for them to find relief from physical abuse on their own, if they do not have a male relative to help them.

  24. Cristina,

    I understand your concern but I think we need to have a society where men take responsibility for the care and protection of women once again from a family/relative perspective. This serves two purposes – it guards against women abusing protections set in place to protect them from abuse(yes that is ironic but we are seeing it play out for the last century). And remember a male relative does not have to be a close relative – it could be a third cousin twice removed.

    We have set in place a society where government has basically neutered the authority and protection of family and I think we truly need to get away from that. Biblically speaking women always need to be under male authority even when seeking relief from abuse from their most immediate authority(like a husband or father).

    I know this is tough to hear – but we have seen what giving women full rights in order to protect them every kind of abuse with no male supervision over them has done – it has all but destroyed marriage and the family.

    Some might say – what if we allow her to approach a non-blood male relative for help? The problem is that a non-blood male relative could have his own designs on her and you could have a situation where a man and woman invent abuse by her husband so that they can be together.

  25. Thanks for your response. I’m a lot like Jamie, who posted above about wishing there actually was a real society like this, and we as women could have friends who live the same way. I’d pretty much be considered crazy by most people in my world for speaking this way (especially as a woman). Then again, since it has become so taboo, there might be lots of women who feel the same way but are also afraid to speak of it.

    I’m still a little hung up on the potential for abuse, but I also see it as something that could be worked through. I do understand what you’re saying about family, but I’m from a family with three girls and no boys. My father is no longer alive and I really have to go to some distance on my family tree to find male cousins. I barely know any of them. But maybe families would be closer in a society like this, and people would be more likely to know their cousins. Or maybe there’s still another option to consider, such as a committee of elders that could be approached in rare cases. It’s all fascinating, to me, to consider.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.