There’s a short clip circulating on social media from The Larry Arnn Show, featuring Kevin DeYoung and Larry Arnn, President of Hillsdale College. In it, Dr. Arnn argues: “A Christian nation is not possible. Because Jesus’ Kingdom is not of this world.”

It’s an objection to “Christian Nationalism” that we’ve answered before, but worth revisiting. Arnn’s claim is drawn from Jesus’ words to Pilate during His trial, recorded in John’s Gospel.

When Pilate remarked that Jesus’ own Jewish nation had delivered Him over, Jesus responded:“My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from this world” (John 18:36).

Dr. Arnn is not the first to make this argument. It’s a popular one, especially with those who want to relegate Christianity to the confines of the cloister. The problem is, the argument assumes that “not of this world” means “not in this world”—as though Christ’s Kingdom has no place on earth, or doesn’t belong outside the bounds of heaven. But that’s not what Jesus was saying. After all, if Christ’s kingdom has no place in the world, why would He command us to pray: “Thy Kingdom come… on earth as it is in heaven”?

Rather, “not of this world” means Christ’s kingdom does not originate from this world, nor operate like worldly kingdoms. It is not of this world’s system, neither in function nor genesis. It is of a different nature and order. That’s why Jesus explained that His servants were not fighting for His release. It does not function the way earthly kingdoms function.

While earthly kingdoms advance by the sword, spilling the blood of the king’s enemies, Christ’s kingdom advances by the Sword of the Spirit, and the spilled blood of the King, which was shed on behalf of his enemies.

The true weapon of the Kingdom is the Sword of the Spirit, the Word of God (Rev. 19:15), not the sword of violence. The Gospel spreads Christ’s reign as people willingly submit to Him. When people become Christians, there are significant implications for how people live, individually and collectively. And these implications can be unavoidably political.

The most basic confession of the Christian faith is the declaration that “Christ is Lord”—it is the most politically significant confession imaginable. Rival kings have always understood this—which is why Rome persecuted Christians. Caesar tolerated many gods, but not a rival king.

While this confession is a denial of false religion, it is not a rejection of the concept of nationhood. “Christ is Lord” is not a truth that undermines nations or even kingship, but redeems them. Jesus is King of kings; he is the Lord of lords. Kings and lords can exist, but they must operate as subjects to Christ and his command to love, and his definition of love. It is then that a nation can truly experience blessing, because Scripture consistently ties the flourishing of peoples to their recognition of God’s ultimate authority and their obedience to His commands: to love God and love neighbour.

Thus, a “Christian nation” is simply a nation that acknowledges Christ as supreme and seeks to embody His commands in public life. Just as individuals, families, and churches can be “Christian,” so can communities and nations. Christianity is never merely private—it has always had corporate, social, and cultural expression.

But if we cannot have Christian nations because Christ’s kingdom is “not of this world,” then why can we have Christian families? Christian colleges? Christian marriages?

Hillsdale calls itself a “Christian college.” If a college can operate on explicitly Christian principles because its leaders and community embrace them, why can’t a nation do the same? If an institution of education can be “Christian,” why not the institution under which we live and are governed?

This is precisely why Paul urged Timothy to pray for kings and rulers—that they might come to faith. He understood that once rulers are Christian, their governance would reflect Christ’s rule, creating conditions for a peaceful and godly life (1 Tim. 2:1–2).

So yes, Christian rulers are possible. Christian nations are possible. And far from undermining earthly peace, they are the very means by which societies may flourish in justice, mercy, and truth.

So, if you want “a quiet life, godly and dignified in every way,” don’t just sit on your hands and wait to be raptured out of this world. Instead, pray for Christian rulers. Pray for Christian nations.

It’s worth noting that critics who dismiss Christian Nationalism as “unbiblical” or “un-Christian” overlook the fact that even their call for Christians to avoid imposing biblical standards on society is itself an attempt to apply a moral and theological vision to governance.

Thus, the debate is not about whether morality and religion shape civil law and direct power—they inevitably do—but about whose standard should prevail: God’s unchanging Word or shifting human opinion. Ultimately, if God’s standards are truly just, loving, and righteous, then any alternative legal framework will necessarily be less just, less loving, and less righteous.

In the end, Christian Nationalism, in some sense, is unavoidable. The moment you assert what is (or is not) the God-given obligation of a nation, you are doing “Christian Nationalism.” The question then is only how we define those obligations.

In other words, the real issue is not whether nations will be ruled by some creed, but whether they will be ruled by the fleeting wisdom of man or by the eternal Lordship of Christ.