The Danger of Christian Nationalism
I rarely watch the news on television, of any channel. I simply do not trust what I hear; they are all biased toward their ideological and political affiliations. However, I am not deaf to what is going on in our society and culture. Personally, I prefer to read articles from various sources and to gather information from unofficial channels on social media. I mean, it is nearly impossible for a news source to present political, religious, and ideological news from an unbiased perspective. This is also true of how history is told isn’t it? The narrative is always interpreted through the lens of the one telling it.
Having said that, regardless of the untrustworthiness of news sources in general, it is not difficult to pick up on popular trends in society and the Church. Over the last couple of years, I have noticed a rise in Christian Nationalism within in the West, and it concerns me a great deal. In many ways, it seems to be a reaction to the woke left who frequently accuse the conservative right of such things as homophobia, misogyny, and various other labels. What we are witnessing is moral outrage on both sides of the spectrum.
Morally speaking, modern Christians tend to land on the right, even when some hold to economic views that lean towards the socialist ideas of the left. Traditional Christian convictions such as pro-life, holding to a biblical view of marriage, traditional view of biological gender, defending free speech, believing in objective moral truth, etc, now fall on the political right by default, even if a Christian favours economic left-wing ideas such as price controls, universal welfare, trade unions, or public ownership.
This is precisely where confusion often begins: when moral convictions become entangled with political identities, Christians are often tempted to see defending the Christian faith as synonymous with defending their cultural or national identity. Historically, Christianity has been the major religion of Britain and today we are seeing a deep desire among many to return to those values, even though they do not identify strongly as Christians themselves.
In this article, I want to demonstrate why Christian Nationalism is a poor advocate for Christ and his gospel. Christian Nationalism terribly misunderstands Christianity and the role of the gospel for the nations.
Having said that, regardless of the untrustworthiness of news sources in general, it is not difficult to pick up on popular trends in society and the Church. Over the last couple of years, I have noticed a rise in Christian Nationalism within in the West, and it concerns me a great deal. In many ways, it seems to be a reaction to the woke left who frequently accuse the conservative right of such things as homophobia, misogyny, and various other labels. What we are witnessing is moral outrage on both sides of the spectrum.
Morally speaking, modern Christians tend to land on the right, even when some hold to economic views that lean towards the socialist ideas of the left. Traditional Christian convictions such as pro-life, holding to a biblical view of marriage, traditional view of biological gender, defending free speech, believing in objective moral truth, etc, now fall on the political right by default, even if a Christian favours economic left-wing ideas such as price controls, universal welfare, trade unions, or public ownership.
This is precisely where confusion often begins: when moral convictions become entangled with political identities, Christians are often tempted to see defending the Christian faith as synonymous with defending their cultural or national identity. Historically, Christianity has been the major religion of Britain and today we are seeing a deep desire among many to return to those values, even though they do not identify strongly as Christians themselves.
In this article, I want to demonstrate why Christian Nationalism is a poor advocate for Christ and his gospel. Christian Nationalism terribly misunderstands Christianity and the role of the gospel for the nations.
What is Christian Nationalism?
Christian Nationalism is a socio-political ideology that combines national identity with Christian morals and ethics. It asserts that a nation ought to be governed according to Christian laws, values, and traditions. Advocates of Christian nationalism push for public policies, legislation, or institutions to reflect their interpretation of Christian teaching. Today, it often manifests as a yearning for the ‘good old days’, when the nation was thought to be ‘more Christian’. Christianity carries a little bit of sentimentality for many. The focus is less on allegiance to Christ Himself and more on a sense of national and cultural identity, which is assumed to embody Christian values.
What are they saying?
There are many prominent Christian Nationalist figures such as the late Charlie Kirk, Candace Owens, Mike Pence, Ben Shapiro (Judeo-Christian Nationalist), and Ann Coulter, to name a few. Unlike over the pond, there aren’t many who openly call themselves Christian nationalists in the United Kingdom, though some do exist usually within political groups. Most prominent figures are labelled as Christian nationalists by others observing their views, rather than self-identifying as Christian nationalists themselves. These would include individuals such as Tommy Robinson, Nicki Tenconi, Jim Dowson, Jayda Fransen, and Danny Kruger MP. Beyond such individuals, Christian Nationalism seems to be a growing trend in society, largely in response to relaxed border controls, woke-ism, and the growth of Islam. This trend can be seen both inside and outside of the church, and the trend increases when the gospel is lacking.
I will discuss two examples of recent expressions of Christian Nationalism from two prominent figures which can be easily found online. The first is a speech made by Danny Kruger MP, and the second by Tommy Robinson. I do not wish to criticise these men in a way that is unloving or unkind. I only hope to highlight the danger behind their ideology to show how it does not support biblical Christianity.
I will discuss two examples of recent expressions of Christian Nationalism from two prominent figures which can be easily found online. The first is a speech made by Danny Kruger MP, and the second by Tommy Robinson. I do not wish to criticise these men in a way that is unloving or unkind. I only hope to highlight the danger behind their ideology to show how it does not support biblical Christianity.
Danny Kruger MP
A fellow Christian whom I love and value recently drew my attention to a speech made in the House of Commons a few months ago by Reform MP Danny Kruger, who himself identifies as a Christian. I have read further about him from various sources to gain a more balanced view to try and capture his ideas and approach. Whilst I sympathise with Kruger’s frustration regarding the moral decline of the United Kingdom, I do not agree with his approach to reform and would place him firmly within the stream of Christian Nationalism.
During his speech in the House of Commons, he said the following: “The Church [of England] is the chaplain to the nation, and through the parish system, in which every square inch of England has its local church and its local priest, we are all members, we all belong, even if you’ve never set foot in your church for one year to the next, even if you don’t believe in its teachings, it is your church, and you are its member.” This is a troubling statement. It assumes that regardless of one’s beliefs and personal convictions, by simply living in England it means you belong to a local parish church, are a member of it, and by implication, you should identify as a Christian.
This raises a fundamental question: what actually makes someone a Christian? Does one’s national identity equate to personal faith? By his logic, British people are ‘Christian’ simply because they are British. They are synonymous. Faith is reduced to a matter of geography and traditional culture rather than the transformation of the heart through Christ.
Kruger then proceeded to argue that both the church and the nation are in a terrible state, in that they are badly run and confused about their doctrines. He proceeded to mention a few laws which were in opposition to Christian morals and then said: “There is a great hunger in society for a better way of living, and I want to use this opportunity to explain what that better way is, and why we here, in England, have the means to follow it”.
Is Christianity just a roadmap to better living? Does adherence to Christian morals make life better? And if so, for whom? I think there is some truth here. It is my opinion that life is greatly improved when Christian values are upheld. For example, the life of an unaborted babies would drastically improve as a result of abolishing legalised abortion. It is true that when Christians abolished slavery in the nineteenth century, the lives of enslaved people drastically improved. The establishment of local schools and universities by Christians greatly improved the state of the nation’s education. Orphanages were first founded by Christians so that parentless children could receive care. There is good evidence to suggest that life, in general, improves as a result of Christian values.
Yet context matters. We no longer live in a society where slavery is legal, where orphans are left uncared for, or basic education is unavailable. Legalised abortion, of course, is the greatest evil of our time, and it is therefore true that Christians should pursue the abolishment of legalised abortion. But that is my opinion. Regardless of what I believe, women who have become pregnant by rape may profoundly disagree that abolishing legalised abortion would greatly improve their lives. Similarly, a severely disabled person who wishes to pursue assisted dying would disagree that his/her life would improve should the assisted dying law be abolished. To claim that enforcing a Christian moral code universally will improve everyone’s life is naïve at best and coercive at worst.
Kruger is correct right that Christianity profoundly shaped the laws and culture of the United Kingdom. But how and why? The moral and social reforms that he refers to were inspired by the gospel. They were not rooted in national pride, but by Christ-centred love, compassion, and justice. Christian faith has never been about asserting cultural dominance or tying salvation to nationality.
Christian Nationalism, therefore, is not the answer. Faith is not a badge of citizenship. True Christianity calls for allegiance to Christ, not to a nation, culture, or the ‘good old days’. National identity does not make one a Christian, only faith in Christ can do that. Christianity is not a means of improving a nation to a moral end, even though it does. Rather, it is the path to life in Christ, forgiveness, and hope. Its power lies in transforming individuals who then seek the good of others not because of nationalism, or an opposition to another religion, but because of Christ, and God’s acceptance of us through him. To conflate faith with citizenship is to misunderstand the gospel entirely.
Kruger proceeds to make a number of questionable historical claims about England’s Christian origins, that England is the oldest Christian country in Western Europe. Near the end of his speech, he says that Christianity repeatedly rescued the nation “from the edge”, particularly in relation to social and political crises. He mentions “the reformers of the eleventh and sixteenth centuries, the Puritans in the seventeenth centuries, and the evangelicals in the nineteenth centuries” as evidence of this. On that basis, he calls for a new restoration: the revival of the faith, the recovery of Christian politics, and the re-founding of the country on the teaching that Alfred [the Great] established. I suppose he forgot that the Celtic peoples were largely Christian before the Anglo-Saxons invaded Britain and that the laws of Hywel Dda were far more ‘Christian’ than Alfred’s. Perhaps that is a little bit of my own national pride bursting through!
There is, of course, a sense in which this reading of history contains elements of truth since Christianity has undeniably shaped England’s (broadly, the United Kingdom) morality, its laws, institutions, and understanding of justice. Yet Kruger’s argument subtly shifts from historical observation to ideological prescription. The problem is not that Christianity has influenced the nation, but that he treats Christianity primarily as a civilising force rather than a redemptive one.
The reformers, Puritans, and evangelicals Kruger mentions were not seeking to revive a Christian nation in the abstract. Rather, they were gripped by the gospel, theological conviction, personal repentance, and a renewed submission to the Bible. Their influence on politics and society was the fruit of spiritual renewal, not the goal of it. To aim first at “Christian politics”, or national reform, is to reverse that order. It confuses the cause and effect.
Kruger’s mission of seeking to frame England’s (broadly, the United Kingdom) hope of restoration through Christian identity and political recovery risks reducing the gospel to a means of national preservation. Christianity becomes a tool for solving society rather than the announcement and proclamation of God’s saving work in Christ. This is where Christian Nationalism subtly replaces Christian faith. It sounds attractive to many Christians who are fed up with the moral decline of the United Kingdom. But when the Church is valued less for proclaiming Christ crucified, and more for its usefulness in holding a nation together, the gospel is lost.
During his speech in the House of Commons, he said the following: “The Church [of England] is the chaplain to the nation, and through the parish system, in which every square inch of England has its local church and its local priest, we are all members, we all belong, even if you’ve never set foot in your church for one year to the next, even if you don’t believe in its teachings, it is your church, and you are its member.” This is a troubling statement. It assumes that regardless of one’s beliefs and personal convictions, by simply living in England it means you belong to a local parish church, are a member of it, and by implication, you should identify as a Christian.
This raises a fundamental question: what actually makes someone a Christian? Does one’s national identity equate to personal faith? By his logic, British people are ‘Christian’ simply because they are British. They are synonymous. Faith is reduced to a matter of geography and traditional culture rather than the transformation of the heart through Christ.
Kruger then proceeded to argue that both the church and the nation are in a terrible state, in that they are badly run and confused about their doctrines. He proceeded to mention a few laws which were in opposition to Christian morals and then said: “There is a great hunger in society for a better way of living, and I want to use this opportunity to explain what that better way is, and why we here, in England, have the means to follow it”.
Is Christianity just a roadmap to better living? Does adherence to Christian morals make life better? And if so, for whom? I think there is some truth here. It is my opinion that life is greatly improved when Christian values are upheld. For example, the life of an unaborted babies would drastically improve as a result of abolishing legalised abortion. It is true that when Christians abolished slavery in the nineteenth century, the lives of enslaved people drastically improved. The establishment of local schools and universities by Christians greatly improved the state of the nation’s education. Orphanages were first founded by Christians so that parentless children could receive care. There is good evidence to suggest that life, in general, improves as a result of Christian values.
Yet context matters. We no longer live in a society where slavery is legal, where orphans are left uncared for, or basic education is unavailable. Legalised abortion, of course, is the greatest evil of our time, and it is therefore true that Christians should pursue the abolishment of legalised abortion. But that is my opinion. Regardless of what I believe, women who have become pregnant by rape may profoundly disagree that abolishing legalised abortion would greatly improve their lives. Similarly, a severely disabled person who wishes to pursue assisted dying would disagree that his/her life would improve should the assisted dying law be abolished. To claim that enforcing a Christian moral code universally will improve everyone’s life is naïve at best and coercive at worst.
Kruger is correct right that Christianity profoundly shaped the laws and culture of the United Kingdom. But how and why? The moral and social reforms that he refers to were inspired by the gospel. They were not rooted in national pride, but by Christ-centred love, compassion, and justice. Christian faith has never been about asserting cultural dominance or tying salvation to nationality.
Christian Nationalism, therefore, is not the answer. Faith is not a badge of citizenship. True Christianity calls for allegiance to Christ, not to a nation, culture, or the ‘good old days’. National identity does not make one a Christian, only faith in Christ can do that. Christianity is not a means of improving a nation to a moral end, even though it does. Rather, it is the path to life in Christ, forgiveness, and hope. Its power lies in transforming individuals who then seek the good of others not because of nationalism, or an opposition to another religion, but because of Christ, and God’s acceptance of us through him. To conflate faith with citizenship is to misunderstand the gospel entirely.
Kruger proceeds to make a number of questionable historical claims about England’s Christian origins, that England is the oldest Christian country in Western Europe. Near the end of his speech, he says that Christianity repeatedly rescued the nation “from the edge”, particularly in relation to social and political crises. He mentions “the reformers of the eleventh and sixteenth centuries, the Puritans in the seventeenth centuries, and the evangelicals in the nineteenth centuries” as evidence of this. On that basis, he calls for a new restoration: the revival of the faith, the recovery of Christian politics, and the re-founding of the country on the teaching that Alfred [the Great] established. I suppose he forgot that the Celtic peoples were largely Christian before the Anglo-Saxons invaded Britain and that the laws of Hywel Dda were far more ‘Christian’ than Alfred’s. Perhaps that is a little bit of my own national pride bursting through!
There is, of course, a sense in which this reading of history contains elements of truth since Christianity has undeniably shaped England’s (broadly, the United Kingdom) morality, its laws, institutions, and understanding of justice. Yet Kruger’s argument subtly shifts from historical observation to ideological prescription. The problem is not that Christianity has influenced the nation, but that he treats Christianity primarily as a civilising force rather than a redemptive one.
The reformers, Puritans, and evangelicals Kruger mentions were not seeking to revive a Christian nation in the abstract. Rather, they were gripped by the gospel, theological conviction, personal repentance, and a renewed submission to the Bible. Their influence on politics and society was the fruit of spiritual renewal, not the goal of it. To aim first at “Christian politics”, or national reform, is to reverse that order. It confuses the cause and effect.
Kruger’s mission of seeking to frame England’s (broadly, the United Kingdom) hope of restoration through Christian identity and political recovery risks reducing the gospel to a means of national preservation. Christianity becomes a tool for solving society rather than the announcement and proclamation of God’s saving work in Christ. This is where Christian Nationalism subtly replaces Christian faith. It sounds attractive to many Christians who are fed up with the moral decline of the United Kingdom. But when the Church is valued less for proclaiming Christ crucified, and more for its usefulness in holding a nation together, the gospel is lost.
Tommy Robinson
Tommy Robinson is a very controversial character, but one that is gathering support among young men in particular. What I’m about to discuss is not a critique of his politics, but a critique of his use of Christian overtones to support his political ideas.
Robinson has promoted a large public carol service and rally to take place in central London today (13th December, 2025) with the stated intention to “put Christ back into Christmas” and celebrate “our heritage, culture and Christian identity”. His claim is that it is “not a political protest” but rather a Christian celebration. In response, the Church of England, somewhat ironically, launched its ‘Outsider Welcome’ posters to counter Robinson’s rally. Make of that what you will.
The Director of FIEC, John Stevens, helpfully posted on his Facebook page recently that the mission of Christianity is not to provide a national identity, “It is the job of the Church, not the government, to put Christ at the heart of Christmas.” But Robinson argues that the government should be doing this and uses Poland as an example to follow. For him, Christianity is a part of his national pride. Yet he maintains that this rally is not a protest. I beg to differ.
A protest, by definition, is a public expression of disapproval or objection to something in order to influence public opinion. Usually it involves being opposed to a larger institution, usually the government. Robinson has been quite clear that he is organising this event precisely because the government is not doing what he believes it should. By a reasonable definition, that is a protest, regardless of the religious language used to frame it.
Robinson has promoted a large public carol service and rally to take place in central London today (13th December, 2025) with the stated intention to “put Christ back into Christmas” and celebrate “our heritage, culture and Christian identity”. His claim is that it is “not a political protest” but rather a Christian celebration. In response, the Church of England, somewhat ironically, launched its ‘Outsider Welcome’ posters to counter Robinson’s rally. Make of that what you will.
The Director of FIEC, John Stevens, helpfully posted on his Facebook page recently that the mission of Christianity is not to provide a national identity, “It is the job of the Church, not the government, to put Christ at the heart of Christmas.” But Robinson argues that the government should be doing this and uses Poland as an example to follow. For him, Christianity is a part of his national pride. Yet he maintains that this rally is not a protest. I beg to differ.
A protest, by definition, is a public expression of disapproval or objection to something in order to influence public opinion. Usually it involves being opposed to a larger institution, usually the government. Robinson has been quite clear that he is organising this event precisely because the government is not doing what he believes it should. By a reasonable definition, that is a protest, regardless of the religious language used to frame it.
If not Christian Nationalism, then what?
The concern I have is that Christianity according to the Scriptures, while it insists on the equal dignity of all people in society, never demands equality for itself. The Church should not seek to advance the kingdom of God by insisting upon cultural privilege or political power. The reformation of Christianity has never come successfully through asserting power, but through cruciform faithfulness. The reformation itself is evidence of this. The Church thrives when she is persecuted, not when she demands to be treated equally. This does not mean that Christians are called to seek out persecution, but neither are we to fear it. We are to expect it, receive it soberly, and remain faithful when it comes.
Jesus is explicit that his followers will face persecution precisely because they belong to him:
- Matthew 5:10-12 - Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
- Matthew 10:22 - You will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.
- Matthew 24:9 - Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name's sake.
- John 15:18-20 - If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours.
The Apostles likewise taught the same:
- 2 Timothy 2:12 - Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.
- Philippians 1:29 - For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, engaged in the same conflict that you saw I had and now hear that I still have.
- 1 Peter 2:21 - For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps.
- 1 Peter 4:12-13 - Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.
- Acts 14:21-22 - When they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.
The key to the reformation of Christianity is not to demand equality with other religions or peoples by asserting power, but to serve, love, and forgive those who demand superiority over us. The Church’s witness is not strengthened by demanding recognition from the government, but by living according the self-giving love of Christ in a world that rarely rewards it. The moment Christianity begins to grasp for privilege or political leverage in order to secure its place in society, it quietly abandons the very means by which it was first established. The Church’s witness is not strengthened by demanding recognition or protection from the government, but by living according to the self-giving love Christ. It is this approach that has transformed governments of the past.
Jesus is explicit that his followers will face persecution precisely because they belong to him:
- Matthew 5:10-12 - Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
- Matthew 10:22 - You will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.
- Matthew 24:9 - Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name's sake.
- John 15:18-20 - If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours.
The Apostles likewise taught the same:
- 2 Timothy 2:12 - Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.
- Philippians 1:29 - For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, engaged in the same conflict that you saw I had and now hear that I still have.
- 1 Peter 2:21 - For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps.
- 1 Peter 4:12-13 - Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.
- Acts 14:21-22 - When they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.
The key to the reformation of Christianity is not to demand equality with other religions or peoples by asserting power, but to serve, love, and forgive those who demand superiority over us. The Church’s witness is not strengthened by demanding recognition from the government, but by living according the self-giving love of Christ in a world that rarely rewards it. The moment Christianity begins to grasp for privilege or political leverage in order to secure its place in society, it quietly abandons the very means by which it was first established. The Church’s witness is not strengthened by demanding recognition or protection from the government, but by living according to the self-giving love Christ. It is this approach that has transformed governments of the past.
At the heart of this is the nature of the gospel itself. We are not accepted by God because He asserts authority over us, though he rightly does have authority over us. We are accepted because the Son of God gave Himself up for us. Christ does not conquer by force, but by sacrifice. The time when God will assert His authority will be the time of Christ’s return. Christians gladly receive His authority now because we have received His love of God through Christ. The cross stands as the definite rejection of power as the means of redemption. Authority is present, but it is mediated through love.
Christian obedience and political compliance are fundamentally different. We submit to Christ not only because He is Lord, but because He is the crucified Lord. He commands our allegiance because He first gave Himself up for us. Any vision of Christianity that seeks authority without sacrifice, or influence without suffering, is no longer shaped by the cross but by the foolishness of the world.
For this reason, the Church must resist the temptation to clothe the gospel with national identity or political ambition. It ceases to be good news for all peoples, language, tongue and nation (Rev. 7:9) when Christianity is merged with national identity. It creates a people whose loyalty is ultimately to sentimentality, national identity, or political morality, rather than to Christ and his gospel.
True reform will never come by reclaiming power, but by recovering faithfulness and fruitfulness. The Church’s witness does not need privilege to survive. Rather, it needs courage to remain close to the word of God and Christ himself; to enjoy him more than we despise the sin of this world. We need to be shaped by the cross and the resurrection. It is only then that our witness becomes attractive, compelling, and credible.
Christian obedience and political compliance are fundamentally different. We submit to Christ not only because He is Lord, but because He is the crucified Lord. He commands our allegiance because He first gave Himself up for us. Any vision of Christianity that seeks authority without sacrifice, or influence without suffering, is no longer shaped by the cross but by the foolishness of the world.
For this reason, the Church must resist the temptation to clothe the gospel with national identity or political ambition. It ceases to be good news for all peoples, language, tongue and nation (Rev. 7:9) when Christianity is merged with national identity. It creates a people whose loyalty is ultimately to sentimentality, national identity, or political morality, rather than to Christ and his gospel.
True reform will never come by reclaiming power, but by recovering faithfulness and fruitfulness. The Church’s witness does not need privilege to survive. Rather, it needs courage to remain close to the word of God and Christ himself; to enjoy him more than we despise the sin of this world. We need to be shaped by the cross and the resurrection. It is only then that our witness becomes attractive, compelling, and credible.
Written by: Pastor Gwydion Emlyn
Posted in Christian nationalism, christianity, Tommy robinson, Danny kruger, Nationalism, church, gospel
Recent
Archive
2025
Categories
no categories