By Davis Carlton

I recently wrote about how modern Christian leaders share many traits in common with the betrayal of the first century Pharisees as collaborators with the pagan Roman Empire. There were several examples that came to my mind, but my response was mostly triggered by Ligon Duncan’s recent interview in which he denounced Christian nationalism. Enter Russell Moore, who eagerly provided a predictably horrible take on the “Christ is King” controversy since the Candace Owens firing at the Daily Wire. Moore’s recently published article in Christianity Today, where he is now editor-in-chief, is titled: ‘Christ Is King’ Is Not the Slogan Some White Nationalists Want It to Be.

Moore takes collaboration with the enemies of Christ to a level that is almost without parallel even within Big Eva. He worked alongside Phil Vischer and David French in denouncing Christian Nationalism for Rob Reiner’s “documentary.” Russell Moore also has documented ties to George Soros funding when he presided over the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission during his days within the Southern Baptist Convention. Moore’s left-wing and “woke” credentials are well-documented. Moore’s opposition to Christian nationalism is predictable in light of his past behavior and comes as no surprise. Everything I said in my previous article applies to Russell Moore, perhaps more than almost anyone else. That being said, Moore’s recent article on the recent “Christ is King” trend is so terrible that I think it merits its own response.

Moore poisons the well almost right out of the gate with cringe references to Nazis in order to convey just how much he disdains Christian nationalism. Moore writes that the phrase, “Christ is King” has been amplified by “groypers” who Moore defines as a “social media mob assembled around white nationalist Nick Fuentes¹, whose singular mission seems to be to put the Mein back in Mein Kampf.” At the end of the article Moore accuses Christian nationalists of “twisting the cross.”

Moore concludes, “A twisted cross is just another swastika, and that’s no cross at all.” I’m sure Russell Moore is thoroughly pleased at how clever he is. He really did own them Nazis! The obvious implication of Moore’s invoking the Nazis is to smear all proponents of even vague Christian nationalism as Naziswhowannakillsixmillionjews! For Russell Moore, inundated as I’m sure he was from an early age with propaganda about World War II and the “Greatest Generation,” the specter of a German national socialist uprising always looms large. It’s nothing more than cheap rhetoric and cringe-worthy jingoism. As bad as this facet of Moore’s article is, it’s Moore’s substantive claims that are truly baffling!

Moore simply does not understand the nature of Christ’s kingship. It’s hard to chalk up all of the problems with what Moore says as mere mistakes on account of how bad it is. Moore accuses at least some of those using the phrase “Christ is King” of “antisemitic trolling.” Moore grudgingly admits that the phrase does “represent basic Christian teaching,” but then immediately follows this up with this gem: “The words God and damn are, of course, perfectly good biblical words too, but most of us can see that context can change the meaning.”

Can Russell Moore possibly think that this is a good analogy? The two words God and damn can be combined into an expletive which grossly violates the commandment against taking God’s name in vain. How can this example be considered even remotely similar to the phrase Christ is King? This phrase is true without any need for nuance or qualification. But as we read further it becomes obvious that qualification is exactly what Moore wants to introduce into Christ’s kingship. Moore argues that the inscription that Pontius Pilate had placed on the cross above where Jesus was to hang, “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews,” was in fact “antisemitic trolling.”

Moore argues that this inscription was meant to humiliate and degrade not only Jesus, but also the Jewish people as a whole. Moore writes, “The ‘Jesus is king’ language would have been self-evidently a kind of joke, making fun of both Jesus and his fellow Jews under Roman occupation…To call [Jesus King of the Jews] would make a cruel point not just to any future insurrectionist but to the hopes of Jewish people generally—No one is coming to get rid of us. Caesar is king.”

Moore then makes much of the mockery of the Roman soldiers in dressing Christ in purple robes and placing the crown of thorns upon His head. “The purple cloak and the crown of thorns were meant to be a parody—as the Roman soldiers sarcastically saluted Jesus, yelling, ‘Hail, king of the Jews!’ (Mark 15:18). They mocked Jesus both for his alleged claim to kingship and for his Jewishness, both seen as being obviously beneath the majesty of Roman power.”

However this doesn’t come across as anything more than soldiers cruelly mocking a condemned man. This has been the way of soldiery from time immemorial, and it was an ancient way even in Caesar’s time. There’s certainly nothing specific to “Jewishness” as Moore puts it. It’s also significant that it is a Roman centurion and other Roman soldiers guarding Jesus, not one of the Jewish leaders who after witnessing the Crucifixion is moved to admit that Jesus was a “righteous man” (Luke 23:47) who “was the Son of God” (Matthew 27:54, Mark 15:39). Moore’s claim that Pilate was practicing “antisemitic trolling” entirely ignores the context of Jesus’ arrest and trial that led to Pilate acquiescing in His Crucifixion.

The Gospels consistently portray Pilate as giving in to external pressure from the Jewish authorities who demand that Jesus be crucified. After asking Jesus if He is a king and after hearing Jesus tacitly affirm that He is a king, Pilate’s initial response seems strange. Jesus’ enemies accused Him of a being a king to rival Caesar as a means of rousing the Roman authorities against Him. This would have been a serious situation indeed, but Pilate responds, “I find no fault in this man” (Luke 23:1-5). The explanation for this is to be found in John’s account of Jesus before Pilate in which more of their discussion is recorded.

In John’s account, Jesus responds to Pilate’s question about his being a king by saying, “My kingdom is not of this world?” (John 18:36). Jesus further explains that everyone of the truth listens to His voice. Pilate momentarily asks Jesus, “what is truth” before responding to Jesus’ accusers that he finds no fault with Him. The most likely explanation is that Pilate considers Jesus’ claim of a kingdom “not of this world” – which His disciples will not bring in by violent overthrow – to be the claim of a delusional religious fanatic rather than a dangerous revolutionary that seriously threatens Roman power. Pilate was also likely unsettled by what his wife told him while Jesus was on trial: “Have nothing to do with that righteous man, for I have suffered much because of him today in a dream” (Matthew 27:19).

John’s Gospel makes it abundantly clear that after interviewing Jesus Pilate “sought to release him” (John 19:12), and to this end asked the chief priests, “Shall I crucify your King?” which prompts them to answer, “We have no king but Caesar” (John 19:15). It turns out that Moore’s initial argument that Pilate was mocking “the hopes of Jewish people generally” by communicating “No one is coming to get rid of us. Caesar is king” is the opposite of what actually happened. It is Pilate who, albeit half-heartedly, asserts Christ’s Kingship in order to deliver Him from the mob while it is the Jewish leaders pressing their undivided loyalty to Caesar in order to drive home their complete rejection of the Messianic hope that can only be realized in Christ. Pilate wasn’t bludgeoning the Jews with the message that Caesar was King. They were the ones doing this to Pilate! “If you release this man, you are not Caesar’s friend. Everyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar” (John 19:12).

It’s true that the chief priests did not want the inscription that Jesus was King of the Jews to be inscribed on the cross and that they instead wanted it to be written that Jesus merely said that He was the King of the Jews. To which Pilate responds, “What I have written, I have written” (John 19:21-22). Is this really “antisemitic trolling” as Russell Moore calls it? No. If anything it is simply another way that Pilate is seeking to make the Jewish authorities own their role in Christ’s crucifixion by rubbing their noses in it. Recall that Pilate has just asserted Christ’s kingship in order to try to dissuade the chief priests from having Him crucified. After the crowd has been stirred up by the chief priests in order to demand Christ’s crucifixion, Pilate makes a show of washing his hands to demonstrate his own innocence in the shedding of innocent blood (Matthew 27:24).

The Gospels portray Pilate as being guilty of weakness and a preference for political expediency over justice, but places the guilt for the murder of Jesus at the feet of the Jewish leaders. Russell Moore’s whole argument that Pilate was guilty of “antisemitic trolling” ignores the entire context of the circumstances of Jesus’ crucifixion and the role that the Jewish leaders played. Moore seems to want to portray the Jewish leaders themselves to be victims of Pilate in some bizarre twisting of reality. If anything, Pilate comes across as exceedingly wearied by their excessive and unceasing carping, a stream of which he would undoubtedly have had to endure nonstop as proconsul of Judea.

In addition to utterly failing in his argument that Pilate was guilty of “antisemitic trolling,” Russell Moore also completely fails to understand the nature of Christ’s kingship. Moore begins his article by arguing in his subtitle, “Jesus’ lordship is not good news for those who want to use him to become kings themselves.” Moore’s central claim is that the kingship of Christ is fundamentally at odds with the nature in which power is exercised in the present temporal order. Moore writes, “Jesus, though, is not a true and better Caesar. His kingship is something altogether different…That’s because the kingdom of God is not a capstone of the aspirations and power games of this present order; it’s a repudiation of them.”

This is particularly deceptive because what Russell Moore says is a half-truth. Christ does repudiate the kind of authority practiced by Caesar and other rulers like him. Jesus famously told His disciples, “Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:42-45).

The problem with Moore’s claim is that he fails to articulate any positive understanding of Christ’s actual kingship and authority, and it isn’t as though the Bible is silent on this subject. Prior to ascending to Heaven Christ tells His disciples, “All power [authority] is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (Matthew 28:18). Likewise Jesus doesn’t just ascend to Heaven, but is seated at the right hand of the Father (Psalm 110:1, 5; Matthew 22:44, 26:64; Mark 12:36, 14:62, 16:19-20; Luke 20:42, 22:69; Acts 2:34, 7:55-56; Romans 8:34; Ephesians 1:20; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 1:3, 13, 8:1, 10:12, 12:2; 1 Peter 3:22). This teaching pervades the entire New Testament and would have been interpreted by everyone as a traditional position of authority rather than a renunciation of it. The present world rejects the authority of Christ (Luke 19:14), but His enemies will be conquered and slain before Him at His return (Luke 19:27). The Apostle Paul also confidently states that every knee will bow to Christ (Romans 14:11; Philippians 2:10-11).

Russell Moore’s conception of Christ’s kingship seems to insist that Christ would never actually force His authority onto an unbelieving world so as not to impose mere “external conformity” upon them. Moore has argued this way before when he suggested that the decline in Christian profession and the rise of those without professed religious commitment is a good thing because this takes away a false sense of being right with God out of mere “external conformity”, as he puts it here. Moore’s opinion was wrong then and time has only made things more clear on just how wrong Moore was and still is on the issue of conformity, even if only outward obedience, to Christ’s commandments.

Russell Moore accuses his opponents of believing that Christ is “a true and better Caesar” but the reality is that Christ is much more than that. Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lords (1 Timothy 6:15; Revelation 17:14, 19:16). Christ does not reject the authority that kings have over their subjects since He claims to have that same authority over them! Christ judges these rulers for not using their authority with humility and for the good of those they rule, but Jesus does not judge them for exercising authority itself as though He was a modern proponent of democracy who insists that true authority can only arise from the consent of the governed. This “Enlightenment” principle fails especially when it comes to Christ’s own authority. Christ is King whether unbelievers like it or not. It is a Christian duty to point this out to unbelieving Jews and pagans because we know the terror of the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:11) and have been commanded to teach all nations to keep Christ’s commandments (Matthew 28:20).

In addition to tacitly denying Christ’s kingship, Russell Moore’s condemnation of Christian nationalists wanting to be “kings themselves” also demonstrates his fundamental lack of understanding. Jesus explained to Pilate that His kingdom was “not of this world” (John 18:36), but this does not mean that Christ’s kingdom does not extend to this world in bringing all things into subjection. Jesus is condemned to death for blasphemy because He declared Himself to be the Son of Man envisioned by the prophet Daniel who is given divine worship “that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him” (Daniel 7:13-14).

Daniel also makes it clear that the authority of this kingdom is “given to the people of the saints of the Most High” (7:18, 22, and 27). The book of Revelation portrays the four beasts which correspond to the four beasts of Daniel 7 – the major empires of the Mediterranean world. These beasts are portrayed by Daniel as fearsome and terrible who “wear out the saints of the Most High” (7:25), but the Apostle John foresees a time when the four beasts will fall down in worship of the Lamb (Rev. 4:6-9, 5:6-14, 7:11, 14:3, 19:4). This demonstrates the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy that the kingdom of the divine Son of Man would consume the four kingdoms that came before and would endure forever.

The fact that Christian believers will reign with Christ is a major theme of the New Testament. Jesus promised His disciples that he would appoint them a kingdom as His Father had appointed Him a kingdom (Luke 22:29). This promise is specifically made to the twelve disciples who would “sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matthew 19:28, cf. Luke 22:30). However, this promise is also extended to all true believers who overcome this present world: “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne” (Revelation 3:21). Likewise the saints in Heaven praise Jesus for having made them “kings and priests” who live and reign with Christ (Revelation 1:6, 5:10, 20:4).

Could Russell Moore respond by saying that the references made to Christ’s kingship and the participation of the saints in that kingship is confined to a future age and that Christian nationalists press an overly realized and immanent eschatology? No. First, a mere disagreement on eschatology wouldn’t justify Moore’s comparison of Christian nationalists to genocidal Nazis. Second, in the Great Commission Jesus asserts that all authority has been given unto Him and instructs His disciples to teach all nations whatever He has commanded them (Matthew 28:18-20). Even if Moore has a more pessimistic understanding of the extent to which this will actually be accomplished in history, Moore would still have to admit that Jesus is imposing His commandments and teachings on the nations.

Christians still would have a duty to promote morality in the public sphere even under difficult circumstances. Would Russell Moore suggest that Christians should surrender the issue of abortion just because opposition to abortion is unpopular? Or is this somehow distinct from Christ’s other commandments because this is a “Gospel issue?” Finally, we have concrete examples of the successful implementation of Christian morality in society. Is Moore going to pretend that Christian heroes like Charlemagne or Alfred the Great didn’t exist simply because they weren’t Baptists who believe in the separation of church and state or “religious liberty” as Moore defines it?

Moore accuses Christian nationalists of seeking to become kings like Caesar, but does the desire to spread the dominion of Christ amount to wanting to be Caesar? Christ makes it clear that authority must not be used like the Gentiles who practice self-serving lordship over those they rule (Mark 10:42-45, cf. Luke 22:25-27). Authority within the state, like the authority within the church, must be used with humility for the good of those being governed. The desire to wield influence and power for the sake of Christ’s kingship is a good thing, just as the desire for the office of bishop is a good thing (1 Timothy 3:1).

Finally, who is really cozening up to Caesar? It’s not Kinists, theonomists, or other Christian nationalists who in our current political circumstances are still mere voices crying in the wilderness. Russell Moore isn’t wrong when he says that Christ’s kingship is “something altogether different” from Caesar. The problem is that Moore seems to think that Christ would never actually impose a Christian order on an unbelieving world, so any attempt by Christians to wield power in the name of Jesus is deserving of comparisons to genocidal Nazis for not bending the knee to abstract concepts like “soul freedom.” The reality is that these sorts of platitudes are simply a pretext for wielding power in the modern egalitarian world; a world in which Russell Moore and other Big Eva celebrities are thoroughly entrenched.

The Christian nationalists that Moore so despises and disdains aren’t writing articles for the New York Times or editing major publications like Christianity Today. The reason Moore so viscerally rejects Christian nationalism is because he is quite comfortably situated right where he is now. Russell Moore and others are collaborators who are desperate to convince Christians to make their peace with the post-Christian ethos that hates them. This is why Russell Moore wishes that if Christian nationalists must declare that Christ is King, they wouldn’t do it quite so loudly so as not to arouse the ire of our modern-day Roman occupiers known in the current year as “Our Democracy^TM.”

1 It’s worth noting that no one in white nationalist circles has taken Fuentes seriously for at least two years now.