What would Martin Luther think about Christian nationalism?
That was essentially the question posed during an Aug. 25 debate featuring a spirited exchange between Joel Beerman, a 20-year professor at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, and Pastor David Ramirez, founder of the Bugenhagen Conference.
Sponsored by the newly established Luther Classical College and hosted by “On The Line” creator and Associate Pastor Bryan Stecker, the nearly two-and-a-half-hour dialogue centered on what is meant by the term “Christian nationalism” and how Lutherans should think about “Christendom, the state, and our public witness in a fractured world.”
Ramirez argued in favor of Christian nationalism, defining it as a desire for communities where “the Word of God predominates in society, culture, legal system, anything like that.” He argued that Christians should strive to create towns, states, and nations that reflect their faith. “Every Christian … should want a Christian community, whether that be a Christian town or a Christian state or a Christian nation.”
Acknowledging potential threats like idolatry, he called it a “necessary risk,” akin to marriage or parenting, and grounded his stance in vocation. “All communities are God’s communities, and they should serve, love, honor, and obey Him in all facets of life,” said Ramirez.
He also pointed to Luther’s support for blasphemy laws and other Church actions against false teaching, noting, “Luther was fine with blasphemy laws … because outward blasphemy … will call down the wrath of God.” He emphasized contextual prudence, referencing King Nebuchadnezzar’s incremental decrees from the book of Daniel as a model.
Affirming government as a divine gift but criticizing Christian nationalism as a misapplication of that gift, Beerman called the ill-defined syncretism of faith and state as “almost always rightly motivated and sincerely undertaken.”
“It’s problematic … in its assumptions about the estates [of family, church and government] and their interrelationships, it’s somewhat naive about the extent of the fallenness of the world, and it’s often misguided in its goals,” said Beerman.
He prioritized the role of the Church in witnessing Christ through living faithfully, not political imposition. “I think we end up hurting and being quite detrimental to our witness by trying to insist on making those things happen,” he said.
Pointing to a recent Eucharistic procession in Texas that was met with protests, Beerman questioned the wisdom behind such religious public displays. “Is this a positive thing or a negative thing?” he asked. “I’m not so sure.”
Beerman agreed that measures like mandatory church attendance may have been contextually appropriate in Luther’s time but questioned their wisdom today. “Should the Church be advocating for that?” he said. “Probably not. That’s not a smart thing right now.”
Despite their differences, both agreed that American individualism — which they framed as being rooted in “soul liberty” — clashes with Christian principles. “You’re always going to have blasphemy laws. The only question is which ones are you going to have?” Ramirez noted. “… The religion in America now … is the establishment of religious liberty as a religion.” Beerman concurred, calling it “a Baptist idea” and “not a Christian one.”
While more liberal Lutheran traditions like the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) have criticized Christian nationalism as “openly racist, patriarchal, or anti-democratic,” other Lutheran denominations that have also denounced Christian nationalism point to the separation of Church and state and the promotion of religious liberty for all.
