The Presbyterian Church in America is gearing up for a politically contentious General Assembly this summer. Two presbyteries, South Texas and Arizona, are bringing forth overtures to study Christian Nationalism. The likely reason for these overtures is overt hostility to Christian Nationalism. The Aquila Report, a Presbyterian news outlet, published a welcomed defense of Christian Nationalism from these impending overtures.
A study committee will not settle the issue, and it may expose many of our young men to biblical concepts that they have never considered before (even in seminaries). When the PCA is called upon to study church history, reexamine biblical texts, and do word studies outside of the American experience, they may end up where I am—sympathetic to CN. Just a warning!
Their first problem will be defining the phrase “Christian Nationalism.” When the term became popular in the PCA, I wrote an article in The Aquila Report (Christian Nationalism – Dump the Term While We Still Can, Sept. 20, 2022) opposing the use of the phrase. Since that time, I have concluded there is no other phrase that calls attention to what I consider the biblical concept underpinning the term. I probably would prefer “Christian Federalism,” but that is another article for another time.
Interestingly enough, Ball has come around to the term Christian Nationalism, as his views have not seemingly changed at all.
There are two other options today contrary to CN. They are R2K theology and Principled Pluralism. R2K (Radical Two Kingdom) theology limits the rule of Christ to the visible church only. The civil magistrate must rule by what is called “natural law.” The Church and the State are two kingdoms under two different laws. The Church deals with spiritual matters and the state with material matters. A Christian Nation where the civil magistrate is responsible to legislate good and evil according to the Bibe is unthinkable.
The other option is Principled Pluralism. This is quite popular in Baptist circles, but it has become almost sacrosanct in Presbyterian circles, too. Freedom of conscience is the ultimate principle, and America as a democracy must not discriminate in the civil realm against any other religions or any other gods. All religions compete and the best one wins. That’s the American way. It’s kind of a free-market approach. To the victors go the spoils. Therefore, America must make room for Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. We must protect freedom of conscience at all costs. No “King Jesus only.” Please, that is out of bounds!
From here, Ball goes hard against the Post War Consensus and advocates for a retrieval of Christian political theory, which any legitimate study of Christian Nationalism will entail. It will be interesting to see how the PCA votes on these if at all.
One Response
The problem I have with Christian Nationalism, is confusion over the kingdom, which Jesus said was NOT of this earth during his earthly ministry. Even if you go back and look at the penatuch and realize God Gave laws to Israel, because as a people they had been lawless slaves under the slavery of Egypt for quite a while. (Although it isn’t 100% clear that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had ‘laws’ before the captivity in Egypt)
A true biblical Christian is always going to acknowledge the the whole Earth is the Lords, however, there are some that because they have no clue how to figure out eschatology want to make Christ’s millennial reign be now somehow, they want to make Christianity as the government into a Tyrant under the Law as if it somehow continues or replaces what God did for Israel in the Old testament.
The more I hear people pushing CN the more I am convinced many do not really know how to rightly divine scriptures, and Seminaries clearly are part of the problem.