I was having a very interesting chat about Christian Nationalism vs Christian Socialism with a good brother yesterday. So, whilst things of politics and the implementation of Christian values was in my mind, I thought I would re-blog this old post concerning Christian Nationalism, theonomy and the application of the law in society. I trust it is nothing if not interesting for you. 
Every now and then, the question of Christian leaders rolls around in Christian discussion. What kind of laws should they aim to enact and effect? Thoroughgoing theonomists have a clear and definit…
Source: Theonomy, Christian Nationalism and a problem of consistency
Interesting.
I don’t think it’s possible for a Christian to function in politics without compromise in one form or another. And thus being criticised by Christians of different stripes.
Do you remember the case of Lord Mackay? He was Lord Chancellor, and as part of his role he attended the Catholic funeral of a colleague. For this, his rather strict denomination disciplined him.
The necessity of collaboration with colleagues whose convictions are decidedly unchristian makes complete consistency for any Christian in politics more or less impossible. Witness Tim Farron on the homosexuality issue.
And such inconsistencies are then leapt upon by Christians on the sidelines.
Also, it seems perilous to Christian unity and witness to attach the designation ‘Christian’ to any one political camp, be it socialist or conservative.
I think attaching Christian to another ideology to show how your Christian principles temper your view of the other thing is not totally unreasonable. It isn’t saying, ‘this is the Christian view’ so much as saying ‘I hold to a Christianised version of this’. We may have a whole host of other issues with the position itself after that, but I think it is valid.
I think one can be a consistent Christian. Kate Forbes seemed to manage and Stephen Timms (and others) all seem able. There may be a case for arguing as you do for leadership of particular parties. But even then, being criticised isn’t the same as being inconsistent. One can advocate in law for things that one personally would not want to do (cf. Freedom for non-Christian religion, for example). I find it odd that Christians would insist on disciplinary action against someone permitting but not endorsing in law one moral issue but not getting worked up over the same approach to false religion. But a lot of the criticism comes from those who haven’t done the work of understanding how Christianity, politics and the state all interact.