Whenever a prominent mainstream print media outlet publishes a Christian writer, it is normally someone compromised or otherwise milquetoast. It always begs the question why the person was chosen. The New York Times is notorious for employing David French to lambast white evangelicals to a predominantly liberal audience. Last week, the Wall Street Journal published a short piece by Darryl Hart.
Hart is a loudmouth Hillsdale professor and OPC elder who is most known for being an unintelligent Christian Twitter hack. For someone who is an opponent to Christian Nationalism, he is known for very dishonest argumentation, like calling CN “affirmative action for Protestants” despite Christian Nationalism being generally opposed to Civil Rights policy. Essentially, he does not engage with the subject matter or the individual components honestly—much like a James Lindsay type. Despite this, he was selected to participate in a Christian Nationalism report for the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
His recent column entitled, “The Presbyterian Middle Way” at the Wall Street Journal continued his pattern of misrepresentation to a larger audience.
Can civil religion overcome the partisanship that afflicts American society? Samuel Goldman, a professor of politics at the University of Florida’s Hamilton School, thinks it’s possible. He has called for a revival of civil religion—featuring a shared esteem for George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, the Constitution, the public piety inherent in Arlington National Cemetery and the Judeo-Christian ideals that animated American social norms. Mr. Goldman thinks this can point toward a shared sense of national purpose.
Hart begins by asking a question which invokes the concept of a “civil religion,” but just as one could say that every government is a “theocracy,” so too does every society hold to a civic religion of sorts. This is not some novel idea, but America cannot hold to a shared civic religion unless there is shared heritage. He also invokes Samuel Goldman as some appeal to authority as if either his opponents or average WSJ readers know or care about who Goldman is.
Mr. Goldman contrasts (good) civil religion with (bad) Christian nationalism. Although it overlaps with Christianity and Judaism, civil religion draws on the scientific and secular contributions that have also informed America’s public institutions, going beyond the “doctrines of any particular church.”
Mr. Goldman’s proposal won’t satisfy those Christians who want America to return to its Protestant roots. One of the most prominent spokesmen for Christian nationalism is Doug Wilson, an Idaho pastor and founder of a college and publishing company. His notoriety derives in part from associations with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and his objections to gay marriage, transgender medicine, abortion and even women’s suffrage.
The obvious invocation of “Judeo-Christian” is itself a modern term that has been popularized to include Jews in America’s founding. Though there was a small minority of Jews, it was not their values that founded America, and the Jewish waves that came from Eastern Europe were instrumental in perpetuating the cultural Marxism that has plagued America for the last century. The Judeo values remain very much in conflict with the Christian ones.
Beyond that, Hart deceptively insinuates that Christian Nationalism is juxtaposed to a civic religion. Nothing in Christianity would forbid nations from having a civic religion, as one might easily argue that a civic religion is necessary to the lifeblood of the nation. It is the reason why the nation exists and identifies who the heroes of the nation are. If anything, Stephen Wolfe’s Case For Christian Nationalism would endorse the idea that a Christian Nation requires its distinct civic religion because Wolfe’s ideas hold to the principle of particularity with regard to nations. A Christian Nationalist America would still honor the Founders as Washington and Jefferson. By citing Goldman, Hart is trying to inject conflict between two ideas where none really exists.
If forced to navigate between the Scylla of secular civil religion and the Charybdis of Christian nationalism, we might look to the deeply American religion of Presbyterianism. A recent report by the Presbyterian Church in America reaffirms a proposition that American Presbyterians have believed since 1788: that freedom of religion and assembly are crucial for Christian endeavor. At the same time, the PCA approved a paper that, with slight qualifications, rejects Christian nationalism.
Hart proceeds to lay out his case that the American Presbyterian tradition chose the middle way. The 1788 Westminster Standards did not assert a “freedom of religion” for all religions but only within sects of Christianity. Hart should know this since both the PCA and OPC share in this confession. This “freedom” does not apply to Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhist, or Hindus.
Hart goes further to falsely state that the PCA rejected Christian Nationalism in its partial report. In our assessment of the report, it ultimately supported liberalism, but lacked the teeth to discredit Christian Nationalism because of the implication of condemning those who are of shared opinion with Calvin, Rutherford, or Knox.
A small denomination, with roughly 400,000 members, the PCA took on Christian nationalism after the circulation of these views on social media and in such books as Stephen Wolfe’s “The Case for Christian Nationalism” and James D. Baird’s “King of Kings.” But the most important theme in the PCA report isn’t a direct repudiation of Christian nationalism but an affirmation of religious liberty. Liberal political orders have, “in God’s providence,” secured religious liberty, limited political power and recognized human dignity—and one of government’s duties is “to protect the free exercise of religion, including liberty of conscience.” Government should “not interfere in matters of faith” despite having a responsibility to encourage “piety, justice, [and] public order.”
It is challenging to take a “thinker” seriously who posits that limited government is the fruit of liberalism. The liberal governments today have far more oversight into the everyday lives of their populations than any medieval monarch. King James was not demanding one call a man a woman under threat of termination or criminal penalty. The violations of liberty of conscience under liberalism (or its cousin Communism) are far more absurd than those in preliberal eras. For decades, liberalism has framed every issue as a “rights” issue. This categorically designates any opposition as being against “human rights.” Gays, BLM, feminists, and immigrants all currently use this frame to suggest their opposition is denying their humanity. In many ways, this universalization of rights and the perpetual quest for equality have been grafted into the current American civic religion.
Suggesting that religious liberty for all religions is a positive good endorses violations of the First and Second Commandment as positive goods. God does not give one the right to sin, but rather sin is a continuous accrual of a debt one cannot pay. Worshiping false religion is merely an accrual of sin, not an exercise of God-given freedom. Because it is sinful, it should not be promoted by the state, and the tolerance (or importation) of false religion into America has had detrimental effects.
This affirmation aligns with American beliefs about limited government, and it differs dramatically from Christian nationalism, whose advocates have called for Christian lawmakers who write laws that constrain the free exercise of religion. Suppressing false or erroneous belief is a common refrain among Christian nationalists. Such big-government arguments clearly place Christian nationalists, however awkwardly, alongside the postliberalism that churns on the left and the right. As part of their dissatisfaction with liberal politics, Christian nationalists read and quote extensively 16th- and 17th-century theologians as better guides on government than John Locke, Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin.
He cites Locke and Jefferson and juxtaposes them with the Reformed tradition. Regarding toleration, Locke wrote, “those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist.” Locke argued that public atheism was contrary to social trust and therefore warranted exclusion from society. Locke would also reject the notion that unbelief is a true religious belief, which would be contrary to Hart’s liberal notion of religious tolerance that he would extend to atheists. Meanwhile, Jefferson as governor signed Sabbath laws, which many today would call “government overreach.” Christian Nationalism would posit that not only are Sabbath Laws good and orient society towards God, but also prevent employers from imposing burdens upon their employees, so this restriction actually gives freedom to the people. Neither Locke nor Jefferson affirm Hart’s arguments in either thought or deed. Their version of liberalism is not Hart’s version.
Hart proceeds to argue a distinction between the 1788 language that is reinterpreted to apply to all religions before distinguishing the PCA support for “limited government” from libertarianism.
Such support for limiting government’s power over religion doesn’t mean that the PCA is swimming in the same stream as libertarians. These Presbyterians are concerned that America has succumbed to “the separation of sex from gender, sexual licentiousness, the erosion of marriage, and the fragmentation of communal life.” Such developments aren’t, however, reasons to abandon liberal politics, because protection of religious liberty is still a blessing for the nation’s churches.
Hart is essentially arguing that liberalism is the ultimate culmination of Scripture’s views on politics. If the signs of societal decay that were brought about specifically by liberalism are cause to abandon it, at what point is liberalism not grafted into his theology? Liberalism has objectively failed. The PCA’s response to the decline of marriage and sexual licentiousness leaves much to be desired, as they tolerated Greg Johnson’s Side B theology while their tolerance of functional female officers erodes the distinction between the sexes which is a major contributor to societal decline.
The PCA report isn’t likely to halt the appeal of postliberalism to some Christians, but it does preserve Presbyterians’ regard for freedom of religion and suggests a way to be a believing American that isn’t pure civil religion or Christian nationalism. As long as Christianity isn’t the norm for the heterogeneous society that America has become, Christian nationalism will continue to appeal to some Christians. But in the case of the Presbyterians, Christian nationalism has received scrutiny and been found wanting.
What exactly is the Presbyterian response to the problems facing America in 2026? More religious liberty? Their policy seems to be embracing the third world invasion as a mission field and supporting ethnic affinity for every group but whites. That is not a viable answer in what Hart even describes as a heterogeneous society. Hart can claim that Christian Nationalism has been found wanting, but his continued discussion of it demonstrates that the ideas have grown more popular, and his intellectually dishonest response is why the ideas have continued to gain traction.
