u/Bakkster

I've been wrestling with this topic for a while, and have struggled with the differing definitions used resulting in an inability to communicate. I've come across a framing device that I'm curious if it might help regarding discussions of Christian Nationalism and the Two Kingdoms.

Nationalism as a term is incredibly wide in its possible uses. On one side, we have the basic concept of the Nation-state which did not exist at the time of Christ (or, according to many definitions, even at the time of the reformers), but has generally been accepted as a legitimate form of temporal civil authority. On the other hand we have ethno-Nationalism (including White Nationalism), which our Synod formally (and rightly) condemns as idolatry. As a result, we cannot say that Nationalism as a whole is either good or bad, and critiques of sinful aspects of Nationalism end up lumped in with legitimate aspects.

So, at which point do we believe our doctrines draw the line of Nationalism transitioning from a God-pleasing form of civil authority, to an oppressive abuse? Particularly in an American context (presuming the Constitution is in force, rather than British colonial rule, or the Christian Princes of the Holy Roman Empire of the Reformation). How much Ecclesial authority can the state wield (either in our favor or against) before it can no longer be wholeheartedly endorsed? How much must be removed from White Nationalist or Kinist ideology to be brought into accordance with Scripture? I expect this will leave a very wide range of possible acceptable government structures, but will better delineate the aspects of modern Nationalist ideologies which are problematic without the baggage.

My group will start in the very far future where monsters are no longer a threat and after reading books about the past they really want to go and see what its about. Im going to have them search for peices and create a time machine and when they do end up going back the time machine gets instantly burnt to a crisp by a dragon. They immediately hate the past and want to to back to the future as fast as possible. (Yes I will have a dnpc based on doc from back to the future)

The truth is, if we frame it this way, no matter who the he is, the synod does lose. It loses the ability to see in the ministerium brothers who share more in common than they often realize. It loses the ability to see the poor miserable sinners that Christ shed his holy and precious blood for. It loses the ability to see those who support those sinners as children of the same heavenly Father, called, gathered, enlightened, and sanctified by the same Spirit, brothers and sisters who live under Christ in his kingdom and serve him in everlasting righteousness, innocence, and blessedness.

​

Someone is going to get elected, but no matter who he is, we shouldn’t say he has won. This will only further divide a church body that is fractured despite the unity that is ours in Christ, a unity that is implicit or explicit every time we come to the rail and share our Lord’s body and blood whether we are kneeling at the same rail or not.

​

Yes, we should vote. Go ahead, make the case for the person you think should lead the synod over the next three years. But do so with gentleness and respect, recognizing that if we are not careful we will bite and devour one another. That the words we use matter, the way we frame the conversation matters, the way we speak about this election matters and will influence how we treat one another and the candidates whether or not this goes to a fourth ballot.

​

If he wins, the synod loses.

​

If he is elected, we may not like it, but that doesn’t mean we have lost. We cannot lose, not because we all agree that the incarnate, crucified, and resurrected Christ is sitting on a throne, but because he actually is. His tomb is empty. He rose in victory over sin, death, and all the powers of hell.

​

He won, the synod cannot lose.

ISSUES, ETC:

RESCIND INVITES TO RIGHT WING SPEAKERS

A week ago I sent an email to the podcast, Issues, Etc., in regards to their upcoming "Making the Case" Conference, June 12-13, at Concordia University Chicago. They have yet to share their response with me.

My email is below, but to this I want to add:

* I also have concerns that Megan Basham utilizes demeaning rhetoric, as she has done in the case of journalist Phil Williams NC5 (https://www.hatecomestomainstreet.com/p/when-christian-pitbull-megan-basham).

* Overall, these conference speakers do not give me the impression that they are aimed at a winsome, gracious attitude towards outsiders, as Martin Franzmann explicates from Colossians 4:5. Because Issues, Etc., and Concordia are connected to the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, I believe this reflects poorly on our public witness.

Conference info: www.issuesetc.org/2026conference/

*************If you share similar concerns, you can email Issues, Etc., via talkback@issuesetc.org****************

You can also email President Russell Dawn (CUC) at Russell.Dawn@cuchicago.edu

______

June 1, 2026

To Issues, Etc. (cc: President Russell Dawn--Concordia Chicago):

I write to express my deep concern over the slated speakers for the Making the Case Conference. While proclaiming the truth of God's Word is our calling, it concerns me that the Conference features speakers who are mainly associated with Republican partisanship and others who are viewed by outsiders as those who stoke hatred.

Specifically I believe that Robert Spencer inflames anti-Muslim hatred through his rhetoric. I do not think that this exemplifies how we are to be salt and light in the world demonstrating God's truth, grace, mercy, and love. I also do not see Spencer as someone who is teaching how to proclaim Jesus Christ to Muslims. He condemns Islam, to be sure, but to what end? He does not seem to be an evangelist, which is our true calling.

I would strongly encourage you to rescind your invite for Spencer to speak. Based on previous statements by CAIR and SPLC against Spencer, I think Spencer's presence could stoke protest and backlash from the wider community. This can only hurt the witness of the LCMS and Concordia Chicago.

Similar concerns can be raised about Governor Desantis. The ways in which he has led campaigns against the LGBTQ community will damage our witness to that community. Additionally, Desantis has frequently disparaged Chicago. How does this impact Concordia Chicago's ability to engage with the Chicago area? Therefore, I would also ask that you remove Desantis from the conference lineup.

I look forward to your response to these concerns.

In Jesus,

The Rev. Dr. Benjamin C. Squires

From one of this year's convention overtures:

>>WHEREAS, The Synod has condemned (2019 Res. 7-02) such harmful ideologies, which embrace the Marxist concepts of victim and oppressor by appealing to our sinful nature to lord it over one another (Mark 10:42);

And the cited 2019 resolution:

>>WHEREAS, Today’s predominant culture of higher education presents a particular challenge to the Gospel and the Church, and seeks to destroy the faith of the next generation, due to the prevalence of current academic theories such as post-modernism, relativism, progressive education, constructivism, social/restorative justice, intersectionality, pedagogy of oppression, and other harmful ideologies;

What confuses me is that oppression is mentioned almost 200 times in Scripture, and there's not enough specificity above (I submitted a comment to the floor committee asking for this to be added) to distinguish the scriptural understanding of the concept from the bogeyman of Marxism. Does anyone know of any resources on the topic? I scanned the CTCR, and all I got was stuff about persecution of Christians.

Thank you!

Psalms 72:1, 4

[1] Give the king your justice, O God, and your righteousness to a king’s son.

[4] May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor.