Last year, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) formed a committee to study Christian Nationalism.1 The committee’s mandate was:
“to study the relationship between Christian Nationalism, Ethno-Nationalism, and related teachings… advise on whether these teachings and formulations are in conformity with the system of doctrine taught in the Westminster Standards or where they may diverge from the system of doctrine… [and] write a report that gives pastoral guidance when addressing congregations, new members, and future officers of the PCA.”
This summer, the PCA released a partial report on Christian Nationalism.
The report will interest many Reformed denominations, though some of the specifics are unique to the Presbyterian tradition and the PCA itself. Unlike Dutch Reformed denominations, which hold to the Three Forms of Unity, the PCA subscribes to the Westminster Standards. These confessions share many similarities, but also contain subtle differences.
Even those who disagree with the PCA’s views on Church-State interactions should find their report on Christian Nationalism to be a useful resource. The report contains a helpful list of affirmations and denials regarding Church-State relations, a historical overview of Reformed views of this relationship, and pastoral guidance about how to handle related controversies within the Church.
In what follows, I’m focusing on the report’s analysis of varying views of Church-State relations that might be labeled Christian Nationalism. I want to let the report speak for itself, but since the report focuses on the specific language of the Westminster Confession of Faith, I will try to translate it for those who subscribe to the Belgic Confession.
Historical overview
The report examined five very different possible definitions of “Christian Nationalism.
But before looking more closely at each of these five, let me provide a brief historical overview of the confessional understanding of the Church-State relationship.
To do so, let’s consider Article 36 of the Belgic Confession on The Civil Government and Chapter 23 of the Westminster Confession of Faith, Of the Civil Magistrate. This article and this chapter have been the subject of intense debate for centuries. Both the Westminster and Belgic Confessions initially recognized the authority of the State to regulate some spiritual matters.
- The original Belgic Confession declared that the State had the task of “preventing all idolatry and false worship” so that “the kingdom of antichrist may be thus destroyed, and the kingdom of Christ promoted.”
- The original Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) asserted the government’s authority and duty to ensure “that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed.” To this end, the original Westminster Confession continued, the civil magistrate “hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.”
Both the Belgic and Westminster confessions have been significantly revised by subsequent Synods and General Assemblies by some (but not all) NAPARC denominations, as these bodies judged that this original grant of ecclesial power to the State was unbiblical. So most (but not all) NAPARC churches will share the PCA’s basic position on the nature and extent of the civil magistrates’ authority in relation to the Church.
Now, let’s examine each of the five different ways of defining “Christian Nationalism.”
1. General influence position
The report starts by investigating the simple “conviction that Christians should seek to influence civil society, that natural law and biblical moral principles should inform legislation, and that Christian piety (per WCF 23.2) is best promoted and protected when the civil magistrate promotes and protects the free exercise of all religions.”
The report finds that:
“this position is entirely consistent with the PCA’s constitutional standards… The Confession assumes that Christians will be engaged in civil life – sometimes robustly, by serving in office, for example – and that they will bring their convictions to bear on public questions.”
Perhaps the report could have used some stronger language on this point. Not only is it consistent with the Reformed and Presbyterian confessions for Christians to seek to influence civil society in accordance with God’s Word, but this is the minimum duty of Christians, particularly in a democracy. One important insight of Reformed thought, even if it is not codified in our confessions, is a commitment to applying God’s Word to all areas of life. We don’t endeavor to be the light of the world only when we evangelize to our neighbor and then quickly cover our lamp when we engage in politics.
That doesn’t mean that we don’t have to do some hard work to understand how the precepts of God’s Word apply to our modern circumstances. In many cases, we do. (To pick another political topic in the recent pages of this magazine, the Bible doesn’t give Albertans clear direction about whether to vote to remain in or separate from Canada. But we certainly believe that careful consideration of God’s Word helped Reformed Christians in that province decide.)
And so, if we take Christian Nationalism to mean Christians generally applying God’s Word in the public square, we should all be Christian Nationalists.
2. “Nursing father” position
Those who hold this position apply the language of “nursing fathers” from Isaiah 49:23 (specifically, the KJV translation) to civil magistrates. The updated Westminster Confession of Faith adopted by the PCA says that:
‘“as nursing fathers,’ it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the Church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest.”
The report explains that the American Presbyterians who drafted the 1788 revision
“did not envision a strictly secular state; they assumed a society in which civil authorities recognized accountability to God and were expected to govern according to principles in harmony with Christian moral order.”
But, importantly, “the revisions reflected a deliberate narrowing of the magistrate’s authority” regarding church governance, doctrine, worship, or discipline. For example, it revoked the ability of the civil magistrate to call or regulate synods (as in the original WCF).
Still, the revised language does affirm a positive (not neutral) relationship between the magistrate and the Church (and all religious institutions). “The magistrate is called to protect the Church and not merely to tolerate it,” the report states of the “nursing father” position. Advocates of this view envision “a magistrate who is actively supportive of the Christian religion, provided he does not favor one denomination over another.” Thus the State would not adjudicate theological disputes within or between churches (whether Catholic or Baptist or Reformed). However, even if the State is neutral between different churches, the State should not be neutral towards different religions, but specifically promote the Christian religion.
There is nothing quite analogous in the amended Belgic Confession of the Canadian Reformed Church (CanRC), United Reformed Churches (URC), or Christian Reformed Church (CRC) to the language of “nursing fathers” that suggests that the State should take positive action to promote a general Christian religion. Perhaps the closest phrase is that the task of the government includes “the protection of the Church and its ministry” (CanRC edition) or that “every anti-Christian power may be resisted” (URC & CRC edition).
3. Establishment position (original WCF position)
Next up is the position of those who want the State to establish a specific denomination of Christianity as the State religion. This is the current practice in the United Kingdom (where Anglicanism is officially the State religion) and was the practice in the Netherlands for a couple of centuries (where the Reformed church was established). In the words of the report:
“some who identify as Christian Nationalists advocate for a return to the establishment principle as articulated in the 1646 Westminster Confession. This position holds that the civil magistrate has a duty to establish true religion in law, to suppress heresies and blasphemies, to reform the church when it falls into corruption, and to call ecclesiastical synods when necessary… As a matter of historical Reformed theology, this position has deep and respectable roots. It would be both historically dishonest and pastorally harmful to suggest that the establishment principle is heterodox, given that it was the dominant view of the Reformed tradition for more than two centuries and was held by some of the greatest theologians of the church. Even so, the position is directly contrary to the text of the 1788 American revision of WCF 23.3, which the PCA has adopted as its constitutional standard.”
In other words, the PCA is saying here that although this position was the position of Reformed churches for a century, their denomination had intentionally changed its confession to better reflect the teachings of Scripture. Holding this original position would thus be contrary to the confessional standards of the PCA today.
The CanRC, URC, and CRC churches are in the same boat. All three denominations explicitly rejected the notion that the civil government should prevent and remove “all idolatry and false worship.” These churches might take a similar view as the PCA, saying that holding this view of Christian Nationalism is not compatible with their understanding of the Reformed confessions.
However, FRC, HRC, and NRC churches could come to the opposite position, given their retention of the original wording of the Belgic Confession. Their churches could decide that those who believe that the State should formally establish a specific denomination of Christianity as the State religion are holding to a permissible interpretation of their confessions.
4. Theonomy
The PCA report defines Theonomy as seeking “to advance Old Testament civil law as the basis of contemporary civil government.” The original Westminster Confession of Faith 19.4 clearly states that, to the people of Israel,
“as a body politic, he [God] gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.”
An example of such a civil or judicial law would be the requirement of the death penalty for leading people into idolatry, blasphemy, or heresy (e.g. Deuteronomy 13).
The PCA has issued numerous statements on theonomy over the decades. Although much ink has been spilled over what counts as the “general equity” or the abiding moral principles behind these civil laws, the PCA has been clear that it
“distinguishes between affirming the abiding moral relevance of God’s law, which is confessionally required, and advocating for the direct imposition of Old Testament civil and penal codes on modern states, which is forbidden.”
“This distinction maps directly onto the spectrum of Christian Nationalist positions,” the report continues.
“As opined above, those who argue that civil government should acknowledge God’s moral authority and govern justly in light of natural and revealed law remain within the pale of confessional orthodoxy, while those who advocate for a reconstructed civil order built on the detailed judicial legislation of the Old Testament stand on the wrong side of a line the PCA drew over forty years ago.”
Continental Reformed churches tend to similarly understand that the civil laws of the Old Testament are no longer binding, though the underlying principles of justice may still guide civil governments today. However, as this is not explicit in the Three Forms of Unity and I’m not aware of any denominational statements regarding theonomy in these churches, this understanding of Christian Nationalism may be more of a gray area in Reformed churches.
5. Ethno-Nationalism, Kinism, & Racial Partiality
Finally, while the four positions described above focus on the Christian part of Christian Nationalism, one view emphasizes the nation part as much or more. In the words of the report, “some contemporary expressions of Christian Nationalism are intertwined with views about ethnic or racial identity.” Such views might support race-based policies or racial segregation or even view certain races as superior to others.
The report takes a firm stand against such “race realism” and “kinism.” Not only has the PCA already condemned:
“any theological or political teaching which posits a superiority of race or ethnic identity born of immutable human characteristics,” the report explains that “the Bible (and following Scripture, the Standards) are clear that God ‘hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth’ (Acts 17:26, cited in the Larger Catechism’s treatment of the duties of the Sixth Commandment). The gospel proclaims that in Christ, ethnic divisions are transcended, saying, ‘There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus’ (Gal. 3:28).”
The report states that:
“any form of Christian Nationalism that elevates ethnic or racial identity to a position of theological significance, that treats ethnic homogeneity as a positive good to be pursued through civil law, or that justifies discrimination on the basis of ethnicity or race is inconsistent with the PCA’s constitutional Standards and with Scripture.”
The URC just dealt with this issue at their Synod this summer, adopting the same statement as the PCA to “condemn without distinction any theological or political teaching which posits a superiority of race or ethnic identity born of immutable human characteristics and call to repentance any who would promote or associate themselves with such teaching, either by commission or omission.” This statement was also adopted by the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
“What do you mean by Christian Nationalism?”
In any debate, it is important to define your terms, as both sides of the debate could mean radically different things by the term.
Some might take Christian Nationalism simply to refer to Christians generally applying their political beliefs in politics. By that definition, all Christians should be Christian Nationalists.
Some might use the term to describe the idea that the State should formally establish a particular church. That has historically been the position of many Reformed Christians, but the confessions of many Reformed denominations today reject such a view.
Some might use Christian Nationalism to justify racial separation, segregation, or superiority. That is a permutation of Christian Nationalism that all Christians should condemn.
Reformed and Presbyterian churches will continue to grapple with the meaning of “Christian Nationalism” and whether it is biblical or, at least, permissible in their churches in the coming years. The recent PCA report is just a partial one released in advance of a more comprehensive report planned for next year. Likewise, the CRC just established a study committee on Christian Nationalism that will also release a report in the coming year(s).
In the meantime, whenever you hear someone identifying as a Christian Nationalist, discussing the label, or condemning the movement, a good first step is to ask, “What do you mean by Christian Nationalism?” The phrase can immediately provoke strong reactions, both positive and negative (and for good reason). But the label isn’t the important thing. The substantial view of how to apply the Christian faith to the public square is the central question.
Endnotes
1 If you’re not familiar with the PCA, you’ve likely heard of some of its more famous members, who include Tim Keller, R.C. Sproul, and Kevin DeYoung. It’s also the biggest denomination in the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council (NAPARC).