I wonder if a missing peace of this discussion revolves around the social contract. Darryl (along with R.Scott Clark and Steve Z.) seem to think of a community or nation as a collection of individuals… the parts greater than the whole. I find this most odd coming from Darryl whose Agrarian tendencies would suggest a more organic view of communities and nation as somthing of an extended family.
The Locke, Hobbes, Roussou crowd tell us of a social contract that binds otherwise autonomous individuals through the mechanism of consent. The individual has primacy… King Conscience. Burke suggests an older vision of the social contract as a community of souls binding the dead, the living, and the unborn. Life is not a sprint but an integenerational marathon.
Now, this older view of a nation leads to a recognition that a community or nation is a moral person. Like a corporation, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It has a corporate life of its own and it is responsible for its moral decisions. This seems the heart of our disagreement. Are nations moral persons or just collections of individuals actors?
If the latter it would be hard to understand how Christianity could have much of an impact upon them, but if the former… that is a different story. Thus, I conclude, If a nation is a moral person it is responsible before God and should govern itself accordingly.