Preborn is a nonprofit organization that helps pregnant women choose life

Jenna Ellis: We would like to take a moment to thank our sponsor, PreBorn. When a mother meets her baby on ultrasound and hears their heartbeat, it's a divine connection and the majority of the time she will choose life. But she can't do it without our help. Preborn needs us, the pro life community, to come alongside her. One ultrasound is just $28 and to donate, dial pound250 and say the keyword baby or visit preborn.com afr Jenna Ellis in the morning on American Family Rad

Jenna Ellis: I love talking about the things of God. Because of truth and the biblical worldview, the U.S. constitution obligates our government to preserve and protect the rights that our founders recognize come from God our creator, not our government. I believe that scripture in the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raised up each of you and God has allowed us to be brought here to this specific moment in time.

Dr. Bill Roach discusses Christian nationalism ahead of the midterm elections

This is Jenna Ellis in the Morning.

Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Friday, Friday, August 7th. And as we do occasionally kind of take a step back and have sort of a 30,000 foot perspective of where we're at and where we're going, in the midst of the midterms coming up and kind of this clash between socialism versus capitalism and we're in the midst of burrito gate, if you haven't been following social media, just this kind of ridiculous back and forth between conservative influencers on the affordability issue and, and how, that is an issue that obviously the GOP needs to address. But how we address it, is really going to dictate, I think, how the midterms are going to go. But overall it emphasizes a more underlying and perhaps latent point, which is that broadly speaking, a lot of people, other than maybe the Trump diehards are really not happy with, with where the GOP is going, with all of the unfulfilled promises, the lack of good legislation, the lack of passing the SAVE act, for example, doing anything about doge. there are a number of things that we could point to. And so the kind of Marjorie Taylor Green camp is saying, well, we need to have a third party solution. there are others that are saying, well, post Trump, we need to go more of the route of being America only. And they blame Israel for everything because if we weren't in this, you know, Iran brand sort of forever war, then, we would be focusing on domestic issues. So there's kind of a broad spectrum of where we should go from here. And one of those iterations of let's change Things within the GOP is Christian nationalism. M And I've talked about this at length, over the course for regular listeners of this program because I think it's one of the most dangerous, and insidious viewpoints that undermines an accurate and truthful biblical worldview is pushing on Christians basically a false definition of what the biblical worldview requires of both, the individual, the Christian as an individual, and also the church government and the state government as separate and distinct jurisdictions and institutions ordained by God. Now that doesn't mean, of course, that ah, church and state have to be completely separate or we're buying into in any way, shape or form and the secular notion or what the Supreme Court has wrongfully kind of handed down, over the last century of precedent, basically attempting to completely isolate Christians from engagement in a public, sphere and that the Christian worldview and biblical teaching should have no place in any government funded institution. That's totally wrong. And so where I think a lot of people get a little bit tripped up or maybe, just don't have a comprehensive understanding is what Christian nationalism, the broader movement actually is. Because I think depending on who you talk to, the definition is intentionally vague enough that it changes. But for the main advocates of this proposition, they do have definitions and we need to name them and call them out and you need to be aware of what they're saying overall in this entire topic because their worldview of course, filters into news of the day and how they respond on social media and to a lot of different, events. And so for this conversation with me this morning, is Dr. Bill Roach, who is the, dean of the Norman Geisler, School of Apologetics at Veritas International University and has done some really excellent work and presentations on this subject. So, Dr. Roach, thank you so much for joining me this morning.

Dr. Bill Roach: Thank you. It's great to be on your show again. And this is just such an important issue. So I'm really thankful that you're taking it up again.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, thank you so much because, you know, I actually have gotten several listener comments who maybe haven't heard our prior discussions, because they were, they were a while ago saying, okay, you know, we need to know more about this and we need to name the people who are engaged in this so that we can all as, as Christians be aware this.

Joel Webbin: Let's first define what is Christian nationalism

So before we kind of get into some of the news of the day responses, let's first define what is Christian nationalism, in the terms that the main advocates are trying to Push.

Dr. Bill Roach: So the issue of Christian nationalism is that when we look at this debate, we need to talk about a little bit about what it's not and then what it actually is. You know, this debate is not about whether or not Christians should influence society. Christians always should have an influence in society. God has brought several figures into a place where they can rightly speak into politics, whether at the federal level, state level, local level, and all the rest. The real question that we're looking at is whether or not we should replace one form of progressive collectivism with another form of right wing collectivism. And I believe that, you know, one of the significant strands of Christian nationalism is pushing sort of this baptized form of collectivism that's doing the exact same things the left is doing. But we're just trying to clothe it in right wing language, in Christian language. So the main thing that you have to see is, is that Christian nationalism is this idea of, in which they are trying to bring what is known as an integralist understanding of church and state, that the state should be ordered, quote, towards true religion and ultimately be subordinate to the true spiritual authority of the church. And the point is, is that instead of making a distinction between the church and the state, they're trying to allow the state to enforce the collectivism that they've defined as correct religion. And, you know, that's a broad way of saying that they're taking away the concept of religious liberty within our American democratic sort of tradition in that regard. And in that sense it undermines not only constitutional, but first and Second Amendment liberty. I mean, First Amendment liberty is about free speech and freedom of religion in the United States of America. So it's not just I want Christianity in America, it's that they want to legislate away from religious freedom in the United States of America.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and that's a really key and important point because Christian, nationalists would say that religious freedom in America, is actually a secular device that is undermining biblical truth. And the main advocacy that they're gearing toward is to literally undermine and overhaul the entire U.S. constitution. And their framework is saying that we need to do that because the Constitution is actually biblically wrong. And obviously regular, Christians, you know, you and I would disagree with that. And we would say, you know, religious liberty not defined as secular pluralism, but religious liberty defined as the state, does not compel belief of the individual. but that our law, of course, can and must be predicated on biblical truth and eternal principles of morality. That of course is biblical. If we look at Scripture for what a legitimate government is ordained to, to do and its function in society as a distinct institution from the church. And so this is really important because people have to understand that the Christian nationalists and, you know, we're talking about people, you know, like, Steven Wolf, who wrote, the book about Christian nationalism, people of his ilk, Dale Partridge, you know, what are some of the others? Joel Webbin. You know, some of these people are actually advocating to overhaul the U.S. constitution and basically create a theocracy, which is not something that Christians, should be advocating for, because that is not what Scripture teaches about legitimate government.

Dr. Bill Roach: That's exactly what it is. You know, some of these figures that we look at here, we've been having this debate for a long time now. And I think one of the issues that we have to see is, is that the Christian nationalism debate, it's no longer a fringe debate. You know, there was a time where it was located in Internet chat rooms and Twitter posts, or X, whatever we want to call it today, and given out from publications that were borderline, you know, self publications, not coming from major publishers in that regard. But what we have to find is, is that these ideas are increasingly starting to shape individuals beyond just those figures. They're into think tanks, they're in major podcasts right now. I mean, just think about it. Joel Webbin now and his crew has a platform with Tucker Carlsen and his platform at that point. Some of these ideas are being advanced through Joel Webbin, through figures like, you know, J.D. hall, other figures in that regard. And they're calling for just massive shifts on our understanding of religious freedom. And what's really interesting is, is that they have enough topics to ping pong around, and I use that term kind of intentionally. Is it, Is it the Constitution? Is it post liberalism? Is it the common good? And I think the average person is just being confused in the entire debate. But the true fact of the matter is, is that some of these leading evangelical figures are starting to embrace it. And one figure has even argued, he says, quote, my argument is that the framers of the Constitution on this issue made a mistake. And the answer is that they made a mistake. We must correct it. How do we correct it? By embracing their Christian nationalist view of undermining the traditional understanding of religious liberty that was founded in the United States of America. So it's really not just a fringe debate. I mean, think about it in this sense. You have other figures related to this, and, you know, we're naming names on this, you know, figures like Jack Posobiec, who outright calls himself a Catholic integralist and explicitly calls for having an American Franco. I mean, for heaven's sake, I'm an American. I do not want something like Franco or Dale Partridge, who really isn't a big figure like that. But he's growing in his social media presence, is commending a figure like Hitler. And you go, what in the world are these people pushing? So this is not just a small fringe group of people. They're growing in their influence. And people say, well, is it just an Internet debate? Well, it is and it isn't. I mean, if it's affecting, you know, think tanks, one, it's outside of the little Internet debates. But two, you know, speaking to a broader context of this, we, live in an era where, you know, if you think about it, kids that are, say 10 to adults who are 40, they're not outside anymore. They're not playing outside anymore or doing things outside anymore. What are they doing? They're listening to podcasts and sitting on the Internet. So the reach is much further than individuals would think because the platforms in which people just engage society are massively digital. So these figures have really jumped on the collectivism and the digital pathway that people are going. I know that's a lot of fringe that's related to it, but these are some of the key social dynamics that are driving some of this.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and it's so important to name these names because, a lot of the people that you just, spoke of have massive followings and they are popular, especially with, young people and influential and organizations like Turning Point usa, for example, and like Jack Posobic and and their, their messaging, unless you actually understand the definition of what an integralist actually is, and I want to get to that, then it seems often like what they're suggesting from a top level view is actually compatible with the biblical worldview. So for example, when they say we need to return to being a Christian nation, well, Christians, if you, if you don't go further and say, well, what does that mean? What exactly are you advocating for? It sounds like that's something we would agree on. And if they say, you know, we need to make sure that Christians are engaged in civil government and that the church is engaged, I mean, some of these top level talking points we would agree with on face. And so then when they get this following, then once they pivot slightly and they start inserting a lot of, this other nonsense that is undermining the Constitution and ultimately undermining biblical truth because that's what, what matters even more than the Constitution and they start undermining biblical truth, then they already have captured an audience that is believing what they're espousing. and, and if you're not critically thinking enough and you don't understand the, the definitions of, of some of these, these talking points that they're putting out, you can maybe be taken in, by, by some of this.

Integralism is a specific Roman Catholic political theology developed in 19th century

And so, so speaking of that, what is integralism? Because that is, pun intended, integral to this conversation.

Dr. Bill Roach: It really is. And you know, integralism is a specific Roman Catholic political theology and it's developed in the 19th and 20th centuries and it fundamentally argues this idea that the state should be ordered to or towards true religion and ultimately be subordinate to the spiritual authority of the church. Now what we have to find here is that its key issues that it's sort of pushing, its main features are that it rejects the idea of a separation of church and state and affirms that society should be confessional. Now if we're going to look at the historic understanding of this, Integralism would argue that we should be confessionally Roman Catholic. They're ultimately promoting this idea that the entire sort of political sphere should be ordered, quote towards true religion. And for them it is Roman Catholicism. But this particular debate that we're looking at is that not all of them are Roman Catholic. I mean, Jack Posobiec outright calls himself a Catholic integralist. That's exactly what he means when he's talking about this. But then other figures are pushing more of a magisterial understanding coming from the Protestant magisterial reformers in that regard. And we can't deny that there is a tradition of that within sort of the earlier Westminster Confession and other things that relates to Protestant Europe in that regard. But just because there's a tradition of it doesn't mean that we have to follow that tradition. And what the Catholic integralists fails to understand is that the further you get away from sort of Calvin's Geneva or even Saxony with Luther and those kinds of figures, you start to see even revisions within their own statements. So for example, you see the American Westminster tradition, the American updates to the Westminster Confession that moved away from the idea that is the role of the state to suppress heresy and blasphemy. Just think about that. One, who defines heresy and blasphemy? Two, a lot of quote Baptist and free church tradition individuals promoted quote heresy by affirming something like believers baptism that went away from their integration of church and State. But it's not just that. You see the differences that are coming from the Westminster Confession into the London Baptist Confession where they're removing those clauses. You see that into the Savoy Declaration that's coming about with the early American Congregationalists. And you start to see the way that that's framed in the American Experiment. You know, in many respects, do we want the American experiment to be one of Boston Commons in which we are hanging people like Mary Dyer because she was a Quaker and not a Puritan? Or do we want William Penn's vision of a holy experiment in which we have religious liberty and we have freedom and liberty for all? So that's what it is, is that they're wanting to push this idea of a political theology in which true religion is ultimately going to be enforced by the state as it brings its subordination of individuals under that church state idea. I know that's kind of high and lofty, but just think about it. In this sense, the state's enforcing religion. If the state's enforcing religion, then you've ultimately given up religious liberty in our American context. There.

Jenna Ellis: Wow. And we've got to take a break here, but so much more to follow up on. And I'm speaking with Dr. Bill Roach, who is the dean of the Norman Geisler School of Apologetics at Veritas International University. And we're talking about the dangers of Christian nationalism, what this movement is really advocating for. And, it's so important that we as Christians understand this. And we will be right back with more.

80% of abortion vulnerable women choose life after seeing their baby on ultrasound

We're living in a defining moment in history. Today, a woman facing an unexpected pregnancy can order the abortion pill online, often before anyone has had the chance to tell her she is loved, that she's not alone, or that there is hope. That's why you are needed right now. You were made for this moment. At PreBorn Network clinics, mothers are welcomed with compassion, practical support, and a free ultrasound. And when she sees her baby and hears that tiny heartbeat for the very first time, fear often gives way to hope. In fact, more than 80% of abortion vulnerable women choose life after seeing their baby on an ultrasound and at a PreBorn Network clinic. That one moment can save a baby's life and open a mother's heart to the hope of Jesus Christ. This is our moment to stand. For those who cannot speak for themselves, just $28 provides one life saving ultrasound. $140 helps rescue five babies. Please don't wait. Dial pound 250 and say the keyword baby. That's pound 250 baby or give [email protected] afr that's preborn.com afr Together we can save lives one heartbeat at a time.

Some Protestant integralists suggest that Protestantism is then enforced by the state

welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. I'm here with my special guest this morning, Dr. Bill Roach. And we're talking about the definition of Christian nationalism. And before the break Dr. Roach you were talking about how the people push for integralism is essentially defined as the state enforcing the true religion as defined by the Catholic integralists at least as the confession of the Roman Catholic Church. And some Protestant integralists would suggest that then Protestantism or their view of the true religion is then enforced by the state. And ultimately either either way that you define what ah, true religion is, if it's enforced by the state then it's undermining religious liberty as we have come to understand it and as our Constitution preserves and protects. And this I think is a key point because some listening may be saying, well we do have a true religion and it's not Roman Catholic obviously it's it is the truth, the biblical worldview truth. And I think for a lot of us in the American family radio network family, we we would subscribe to evangelical Protestantism but you know, whatever denomination specifically isn't as important as saying that we believe the Bible is sufficient and inerrant and we believe in the solas. Right. and that, that defines what we understand as systematic theology and the various subject matters that are contained in systematizing what the Bible preaches about salvation, the the truth of man, the person of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, God the Father, all of those things, right? That it, that is truth. And so why would it then be so dangerous in, in as I could hear some follow up questions saying, why would it be so dangerous then to suggest that if we define true religion as truth that this state would enforce that? Because don't we want our laws being predicated on the morality of biblical truth anyway? I mean isn't that what we advocate for as conservatives?

Dr. Bill Roach: You know we do advocate for you know, biblical morality, we do argue for true religion, but we also don't want to buy into sort of this idea that we could call the post liberal impulse to wince at the mention of the Supremacy Clause as it relates to what is a properly understood understanding of what it means to have freedom of religion in the United States of America. And you know, we might look at this as what happens when your religion is no longer in charge at that point. And one of the things that we find is, is that if we're going to allow for this form of government and we're allowing it to be voted in, that's going to undermine it. Well, what do you do if you are an individual who decides to move to Michigan and you get too close to Dearborn, Michigan, and all of a sudden you take away this idea and you're now having somebody like, you know, Rashida Tlaib, who's trying to say something like, we need to have a Muslim understanding of Sharia law ruling over you. Is that what you want? Because that's what they think true religion is, and that's what they think how it should be rightly ordered. So the point is, is that there's a few ways to slice it. What's, you know, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. And that knife cuts in both directions. If you're going to infect force your vision of true religion on somebody, well, that only works when you have the power. When you don't have the power to do it and somebody else has the power to do it, that knife can cut in your direction. And we just have a long history of what happens when we give up the American religious freedom tradition in that regard. You know, we have sort of European Catholic enforcement against Protestants. We forget that books like, the whole idea that we've seen coming about sort of along religious freedom, sort of, you know, Fox's Book of Martyrs was a book that was written when he was in prison being punished against religious freedom for being a Protestant in those types of countries in that regard. Or the book Pilgrim's Progress was written during a time when he was imprisoned against religious freedom in that regard. So there are real consequences in which we have this idea of infinite forcing true religion. The reality is people end up in jail and people have died over it. For example, Fritz Urba, who was a Baptist, sat in a, basically a well, which was a prison at that particular time because he was a Baptist on this. And I think many of your listeners would largely be Baptist in the United States of America. And when you look back at it, Baptist never had freedom in this. In historic European understandings of it and in the United States. We've even seen. I talk about it with Mary Dyer. She was hung on the gallows in Boston Commons because she was a Quaker and didn't follow the puritanical ideas in Puritan Boston at that time. So there are real consequences when we give this up.

Jenna Ellis: Absolutely. And I think that the distinction that often gets blurred in debates over Christian nationalism, theocracy versus a constitutional government. And Christian nationalists want it to be blurred, of course, because Christians are not going to say that we buy into secular pluralism or a secular order of a civil government. And what we're seeing in America today is far too secular. And so the Christian nationalists want this blurred so that they can argue, well, don't you want society to be Christian? But what do they mean by that? And religious freedom and moral civil law are not mutually exclusive. That's what the falsity, what they're preaching, that somehow if you want a moral civil law and a Christian nation, then you cannot simultaneously have religious freedom. But that is false, because religious freedom is the civil principle, that government doesn't compel or prohibit religious belief, worship or conscience. This is what the First Amendment protects, so long as that exercise of religion does not violate legitimate system civil law, the rights of others. So, for example, you can't, as a Satanist, claim that part of your worship is to commit abortion or infanticide. the civil government would restrain that. And we have a whole host of, of Supreme Court precedent on, you know, a lot of those, those issues. And so from a constitutional perspective, the government does not establish a national church. That's what, the, the pilgrims came for religious freedom, so that they would not be forced to, to be part of a state established church. So government cannot coerce someone to become a Christian or to profess a confession, which is exactly what the Catholic integralists want. So people are free to worship or not worship according to their conscience. And that's from a biblical perspective. I mean, Romans 10, talks about that saving faith is a response to the Gospel through the work of the Holy Spirit. Government has nothing to do with it. Jesus invited people to follow him, but didn't compel belief through civil authority. So religious freedom protects the freedom to believe, but not the truthfulness of every belief. That's, that's the notion of secular pluralism. We're not suggesting that religious freedom means that every belief system is, morally equivalent and that we can debate that. We still, as Christians then also advocate for a moral civil law that's predicated on natural law, which is the idea, of course, that God has embedded an objective moral order into creation and that's accessible through human reason, even apart from special divine revelation. So Paul describes that in, Romans. I think it's Romans 2, where Gentiles who do not possess the Mosaic law nevertheless show that the work of the law is written on their hearts. And so civil law, based on a natural law theory recognizes moral truths are knowable by all people. And this is what the founders said, that truth is self evident. Right. They understood that natural law recognizes moral truths such as murder is wrong, rape is wrong, theft is wrong, private property is, is to be, to be protected, and that perjury undermines justice, parents have responsibilities towards children, contracts should be honored. I mean all of these things that are principles of moral truth embedded in a natural order of civil society. This is why a well ordered moral society is what the founders created. These principles don't actually require someone to be a Christian to recognize them. So that I think is the difference, Dr. Roach, is that we can see in the reality, the objective truth of the reality that we are presented to that moral order embedded in natural law. And we can recognize that even if the an individual does not believe that it came from God our Creator. And so we can still have religious liberty because we're not compelled to believe in Jesus Christ as Messiah and Lord, but we still have to be subordinate to a civil society that recognizes that moral order and is willing to, to enforce it in civil society.

Dr. Bill Roach: Exactly. You know, some of the points that you bring up are really interesting and to the point here. You know, I agree with you on all those things about religious liberty. You know, the debate is really one over do we want to have the free church model or do we want to have a magisterial model. And when we look at it, there are so many figures who are pushing the return of a magisterial model. We've talked about the consequences of it, but we have to think about the benefits of the free church model. We're not talking about fringe figures here. We're talking about figures like Roger Williams, William Penn, Isaac Backhus, Jon Leland and the American founding in this regard. Because there are significant theological distinctives that are undermined. I mean not undermining, undergirding the free church tradition. One, Christ alone is the Lord of the conscience and regenerate church membership and liberty of conscience and the voluntary aspects of faith and the spiritual mission of the church. You know, the idea is, is that saving faith, as you discussed, it cannot be coerced. And the government can't regenerate people by coercing religion upon an individual.

Christian nationalists are divided over the nature of natural, uh, law

Now one of the interesting things that you talk about is this idea of natural law. And one of the key things that you must see is that Christian nationalists are actually divided over the nature of natural, law in that regard. First of all, Steven Wolf tries to give us a form of Christian nationalism based off of natural law, but he still pushes blasphemy laws and all the rest. Other figures, they tend to push back against it, and it's interesting why they push back against it. To understand that there was a debate that took place within sort of European and American context, and it was with B.B. warfield and Abraham Kuyper. And the whole thing that they were debating was this issue of, whether or not we can have science or must it be, quote, Christian Science? And the issue wasn't necessarily over. You know, when we do science, are the measurements different? Are the weights different? It was the issue of whether or not a person could rightly interpret the world if they were unregenerate, or does it require you to be regenerate? So can only Christians have true science? Because only Christians see reality in that regard. Now, as it relates to this debate, it's also looking at the issue of morals, and you have a lot of these figures that are saying we can't uphold the natural law tradition because the natural man can't know these fundamental moral truths. You must be a Christian, and Christians must be those in power because they're almost like Plato's philosopher king that only sees the good, the true and the beautiful. Hence, they're the ones that should enforce it. But I think, as you were discussing there, the Bible doesn't actually teach that. And, you know, Warfield was right when he pushed back against Kuyper under this idea of, quote, you know, Christian science. Because we're just handing over the concept of reason and we're handing over these disciplines to individuals and not fighting the real battle. We need to push for the fact that the natural man can know what is good and what is evil and that he's accountable to it, and that we're in a rightly ordered society and that there is a natural law. Because if we give that up, I have no way of looking at somebody to say, you know what to do and you know what not to do in any particular situation. Whether it's a kid stealing strawberries from his neighbor's garden or somebody trying to commit the biggest white collar crime in a bank, or in the federal government. The natural man has a conscience. God has given us the natural law, and we don't need some kind of return to a magisterial order in order to enforce that. God has written his law upon our hearts and he has given us the ability to rightly order society without forcing a magisterial view of religion upon Society. And that's what these people are fundamentally trying to push back against. This idea that we're arguing for is what was known as the classical liberal order. We have reason, we have natural law, we have freedom of religion, we have all of these kinds of things. And what they're pushing for is what's known as a post liberalism. Now don't think post liberalism as post progressivism, because we recognize this, it's the post liberal order, meaning they're pushing back against the worldview that gave us the American founding, what was a product of the classical liberal order in this regard, the United States Constitution and the freedoms that it granted to us. So when they're pushing back against this, they're not just pushing back against the freedom of religion, they're pushing back against the constitutional order and the worldview that brought forth that constitutional order, all for reasons related that they say, you know, the natural man can't know the natural law or we're so far gone in secularism that we can't return to it. The fact of the matter is humanity hasn't changed, ideas can change, but God's written law is still on the hearts, still now still present. And we can rightly order society according to that. We don't need a magisterial reformation in the American experiment in this regard.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, so well said. And you know what you're getting at of course is one of the most important distinctions in Christian theology, because it explains why non Christians can do genuine civic good while also affirming that only believers are spiritually reconciled to God. So this is the distinction between common grace and regenerate Christianity as the Bible teaches. And in fact Jesus refers to this when he says in Matthew, for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good and sends rain on the just and the unjust. And we see that God has a common grace, and blessing across the, the evildoer and and the good regenerate Christian. And so examples of course include what you, what you just articulated as one of the biggest debates of scientific discovery, for example, or reason. some are saying, and I've, and I've heard this debate in a wide swath of social media debates and other podcasts and so forth, that no one who is unregenerate or hasn't come into a saving knowledge of our Lord and Savior, can even reason right and can, can possibly get to the conclusion that for example abortion is wrong, or that the trans movement is wrong, or that certain things are evil because they have they are, they still possess an unregenerate spirit, and mind. And that is a, a complete misunderstanding Scripture. And so this, this whole debate isn't just about the Christian nationalists undermining the US Constitution. And somehow, we are just advocating for the US Constitution over and above biblical truth. What we're saying is that the Constitution as it was created and the view of the founders is actually in line with biblical truth. And that when you have, an understanding of the three spheres of government that God ordained, the church, the family, the state government and the jurisdictions that they contain, the church is not supposed to be over the government and dictate to the government what it must enforce. And neither is the civil government over the church and dictates what pastors must preach or how people are free to worship and believe. That has always been the hallmark of the American experiment with respect to religious liberty. And so when we're discussing Dr. Roach, this concept of common grace, the very idea in the Declaration of Independence was that truth is discoverable. And that's true for the believer and the unbeliever. I mean even, the Bible even talks about as well. Would, would a child who asks his father for bread, would his father hand him a snake like. No, even, even the non believing parent loves his child for the most part. I mean obviously we have exceptions to that with abuse and so forth. But in generally speaking, the parents who are non Christians still care for and love their children just as Christian parents do. And so there is still this view of common grace where, where non Christians can get married and have children. and that's part of natural law. And so when we look at the civic good, we have to factor in the common grace. And then we, we have to understand that the fallen condition of man must account for justice in society, but also freedom that comes from common grace.

Dr. Bill Roach: Exactly.

There is a fundamental debate about what we could call theological anthropology

You know, when we look at this whole issue, there is a fundamental debate about what we could call, you know, theological anthropology, the study of man. And when you look at it, the biblical view of humanity is that we are made in the image of God. And that is something that Francis Schaeffer pushed throughout his ministry. He says, you know, when I look at any individual, I know two things about them. One, this figure is made in the image of God, and two, they're in dire need of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And when we look at this debate as it relates to Christian nationalism and a rightly ordered society, one of the things that we have to look at is yes, they are made in the image of God, and there's a common creation between each individual in this entire world. And because we're made in the image of God, and because we have this common creation, we know that God has endowed us with reason and with morality and with conscience. And that God has given us the ability to order things both locally and at the federal level, according to those types of things. And when people want to undermine that, they're fundamentally attacking the biblical vision of the imago DEI and the idea that we have a common creation, we live in God's world, and God has created us to know his world. And part of that world is the moral sphere of this world and how that can be legislated. Now, some people will say things like, well, the only reason you know that is because you read your Bible. So you must bank off of our idea that only the regenerate know these things in order to push your view. And the answer is no. I mean, I can know this from common experience. If we're going to say that the unregenerate man can't know truth, we're fundamentally attacking the concept of truth. Lived experience lets us know that when I make claims in public unregenerate people, whether it be at a bank or at a grocery store or even politicians, we have the ability to make truth claims and discern truth claims, and they have the ability to do the exact same same thing. So if we're going to give it up, it's actually self defeating because they're ultimately arguing that truth can't be known, that is a truth. And all of us must come to know that both regenerate and the unregenerate in that regard. So it's a basic apologetics issue. One thinks about it. You know, the classical model of apologetics is that truth about reality is knowable, and part of that reality is moral reality. And these figures are ultimately saying that the unregenerate man can't affirm truth about reality is knowable. And I'm not willing to go down that road. I think it just sacrifices way too much of the biblical worldview and the way that we should understand how government properly should be ordered.

Common grace is God's kindness that enables all people to recognize moral truths

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, so well said. And we've got to take one more break here. But you know, kind of a concise way to explain this distinction is that common grace is God's kindness that enables all people to recognize many moral truths stemming from the laws of nature and nature's God contribute meaningfully and in a good way to society and experience his blessings in this life. But regeneration is God's saving work through the Holy Spirit that gives the sinner a new spiritual life through faith in Jesus Christ and is reconciled to him. So common grace can produce good citizens, but only through saving knowledge of Christ produces new creations in Christ. And this distinction also guards against two opposite errors. Secularism, which is kind of where we're going down, unfortunately. in America m right now, it assumes that morality can flourish independently of God indefinitely. So it seeks to excise God from society under secularism or secular humanist, theory. And the other opposite error is what the Christian nationalists are striving for, which is a theocracy in its stronger forms that assumes a just legal order or outward conformity to Christian norms is somehow equivalent to genuine regenerate Christianity. And Scripture teaches that while law can restrain evil, only the Gospel and the Holy Spirit can transform the human heart and have us reconciled to him. So we will be right back with more.

The debate taking place today is one over collectivism versus individual liberty

Dr. Bill Roach: welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And I'm here with my special guest for this hour, Dr. Bill Roach, who is the dean of the Norman Geisler School of Apologetics at Veritas International University. You can also follow him on X, and you should. And we're talking about the dangers of Christian nationalism, what it actually is, who is espousing this view and why it is, antithetical, actually, to the truthful biblical worldview. And so we've been talking about what it is. Dr. Roach. let's talk now about where this is going and what these advocates are actually striving for.

Dr. Bill Roach: You know, the big picture of what we're looking at here is that the debate taking place today is one over collectivism versus individual liberty. And if we give up the idea of individual liberty in favor of collectivism, we've given up the concept of liberty in that regard. So, for example, if I'm going to do something in which I'm going to give up the individual liberty for the freedom of speech in favor of something like this, I may be able to, quote, enforce what's going on in society, and maybe we'll get people to stop cussing in society or saying things that we don't like. But we've also given up the ability to have free speech and to push back any compulsion that's given upon us. So what I want us to look at is that one of the key things that we're running into, big pictures. Why is this attractive to people? Well, it's attractive because we live in a world that's just filled with the secular progressive left. Individuals are forcing their idea of authority upon us. They're taking away our freedom of speech. They're trying to, quote, make us bake the cake. They're trying to make us do all these kinds of things. And my argument is, is that the right reaction to that is to not do the exact same thing from the right upon other individuals. We want freedom and liberty for all. So what we're finding is, is that there's been a reaction to this at the higher level. That's called post liberalism. Now don't think post progressivism. The idea is it's post classical liberalism. And this is being pushed by figures like Vermeule or Patrick Dean. And these are major political figures out there that are pushing this. And one of the key things that we have to see is that post liberalism rejects the American constitutional order in favor of a state that actively promotes a particular vision at the expense of sort of individual liberties. The issue is not whether or not the government seeks that which is good, rather, the issue is whether or not the government can use a collectivist vision to undermine individual liberty. So if the, quote, common good post liberals win, then we are just debating which side gets to control your life. We argue for a limited government, not a collectivist government that is just a growing mob of the left or the right. The point is that we're arguing for limited government that protects our freedoms versus expanded government that threatens it. So the point that we're arguing is that Christians should win through persuasion, not by coercion. And the government cannot produce not only genuine faith, but genuine virtue in that regard. So this idea of the common good, collectivism, is undermining our idea of the American vision of just, true individual liberty. And they're forcing this idea, calling it a safeguard, but really what they're doing is they're undermining fundamental rights that should be given to individuals. And this was something that we look at is like their answer is this, is that if this is, quote, the, you know, the post liberal vision, you know, which path forward do we embrace, you know, this post liberal vision and repudiate classical liberalism in the American constitutional order and the First Amendment? You know, must we define and adopt, you know, this Christian nationalist vision of a, magisterial reformation like, you know, Steven Wolf? Or do we follow a figure like James Bard and repudiate the constitutional rendering of the role of civil government as securing the blessings and liberty to ourselves and our posterior through some kind of pan Protestant vision? No, like post liberalism is not the answer. What is needed is a retrieval of the Protestant American constitutionalism, federalism, a proper understanding of checks and balances, and just the restoration of a proper understanding of church and state. We don't want the separation, but we also don't want the state to, to be ruled by the church or the church to rule the state in that regard. So the big picture is, is that they're pushing for a religious form of collectivism in which they're going to do virtually the same things that the progressive left collectivists have been doing to us just from their right perspective. And just as you can step out of line with figures on the left and lose your liberties, you can step out of line with this theocracy that they're trying to put place, and you're going to lose your religious liberties and your social liberties along with it. So it's not a small thing, it's a big thing that they're pushing all under the idea of, I'm doing this quote for your common good. They're equivocating on that term. Common good is something that's good for common society. But if the common good ends up meaning a collectivist control of people, then it fundamentally undermines religious liberty and any civil liberties that we could ever see going forward.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and that is so important because obviously why, conservatives say that we are trying to conserve biblical truth and we're trying to conserve, morality in civil society is because you can, fall off to the left and you can fall off to the right and you can pervert that notion of liberty, and morality on the left and on the right. And so, the Bible does affirm individual moral agency, personal responsibility, the dignity of each person as an image bearer of Christ. I mean, our, inherent dignity doesn't come from the state or our race or our class economic status. It doesn't come from the collective. It comes from God. And we need to affirm in our church and also in our state that every individual is made in the image of God and has inherent dignity and worth. And because of that, we also possess certain unalienable rights. And one of those is religious freedom. And it also is, the individual's right to private property, you know, some of these other things that, the, the Constitution preserves and protects. But religious liberty must be at the fore. We cannot, go down the path of arguing for collectivism just because it happens to be a Christian nationalist, a dictatorship, any more than we want collectivism from a socialist or Marxist worldview.

Dr. Bill Roach: Christian nationalism is a threat to ordered liberty

So Dr. Bill Roach I so appreciate you staying on for this whole hour breaking this down. I hope that this is more clear of why Christian nationalism is absolutely a threat to not only ordered liberty, but also to a truthful theology. So follow Dr. Roach on X and as always, you can reach me and my team. Jennaafr.net. PreBorn has rescued over 400,000 babies from abortion and every day their network clinics rescue 200 babies lives. Will you join PreBorn in loving and supporting young moms in crisis? Save a life today. Go to preborn.com afr.

Jenna is joined by Dr. Bill Roach to delve into the critical topic of Christian nationalism and its implications for American society. They discuss the dangers of conflating religious belief with government authority, the historical context of religious freedom, and the challenges posed by modern collectivist ideologies.

(00:00) Preborn is a nonprofit organization that helps pregnant women choose life

(00:58) Dr. Bill Roach discusses Christian nationalism ahead of the midterm elections

(05:29) Joel Webbin: Let's first define what is Christian nationalism

(14:24) Integralism is a specific Roman Catholic political theology developed in 19th century

(18:19) 80% of abortion vulnerable women choose life after seeing their baby on ultrasound

(19:35) Some Protestant integralists suggest that Protestantism is then enforced by the state

(30:16) Christian nationalists are divided over the nature of natural, uh, law

(38:00) There is a fundamental debate about what we could call theological anthropology

(40:45) Common grace is God's kindness that enables all people to recognize moral truths

(42:15) The debate taking place today is one over collectivism versus individual liberty

(49:13) Dr. Bill Roach: Christian nationalism is a threat to ordered liberty