notes for the weekend: the PCA's report on christian nationalism

Good morning readers,

Having had some renewed discussions on Christian Nationalism this month, I finally took the dive and read through the PCA’s committee report on Christian Nationalism. It’s very good. I’d highly commend it to you for reading in full.

Here are a couple of sections I found particularly helpful.

First, the report acknowledges that there is a wide breadth of things we might call Christian Nationalism. Some of these stances are out of bounds for PCA ministers. Some of them are out of bounds for PCA ministers and members. Some of them are within bounds.

(Please keep in mind these are edited excerpts for clarity), not the full text. For the full text, use the link above).

Some who use the language associated with Christian Nationalism mean nothing more by it than the 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. This position is entirely consistent with the PCA’s constitutional standards.

The “Nursing Father” position doesn’t ask whether Christians can participate in the political sphere. It assumes that but asks (and answers) the fundamentally different question of whether the Standards as revised in 1788 (for non PCA readers, this is the American version of our confessional statement, which revised the section on our relationship to government) envision a magistrate positively disposed toward Christianity or one that is entirely neutral.

This position holds that the 1788 revision purposefully retained the language of “nursing fathers” from Isaiah 49:23 as it is applied to civil magistrates, saying 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.” This language, they argue, affirms a positive (and not merely neutral) relationship between the magistrate and the church. The magistrate is called to protect the church and not merely to tolerate it.

Thus, some advocates of Christian Nationalism point to the 1788 revision as evidence that it envisions a magistrate who is actively supportive of the Christian religion, provided he does not favor one denomination over another. This reading should be understood in context. The American Presbyterians who drafted the 1788 Confession 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.

At the same time, the revisions reflected a deliberate narrowing of the magistrate’s authority circa sacra. They removed powers that earlier formulations had assigned to civil authorities (such as suppressing heresy, calling synods, or enforcing doctrinal conformity) while affirming the magistrate’s duty to protect the free exercise of religion, including liberty of conscience and the ability of Christians to worship freely.

In the opinion of the Committee, this position would not normally require a stated exception.

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. This is the position held by many of the original Westminster Divines, by the Scottish Covenanters, and by such branches of the Presbyterian tradition such as the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America. 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 19 23.3, which the PCA has adopted as its constitutional standard. The 1788 text explicitly states that the magistrate may not “in the least, interfere in matters of faith” and must protect all denominations “without giving the preference” to any above the rest. In the opinion of the Committee, a PCA officer who holds to the establishment principle as articulated in the 1646 text is out of accord with the PCA’s Standards and must declare this difference to his examining body. Whether the difference is tolerable under “good faith subscription” is a judgment that the courts of the church must make with due consideration.

Theonomic Reconstruction seeks to advance Old Testament civil law as the basis of contemporary civil government. The PCA hasn’t been entirely silent on this issue and has not condemned all theonomic positions as erroneous. In fact, the PCA has actually endorsed some theonomic definitions…

….The 7th General Assembly’s declaration is that the PCA distinguishes between affirming the abiding moral relevance ofGod’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. The Assembly’s endorsement of “theonomy” in its simplest sense as essentially synonymous with the Westminster Standards’ own teaching on God’s law shows that the church supports the conviction that God’s moral law remains authoritative and ought to inform the Christian’s understanding of justice. At the same time, in the opinion of the Committee, the 11th General Assembly’s explicit rejection of applying Deuteronomy 13’s penal sanctions to modern civil government draws a clear constitutional line.

A candidate or officer who affirms that God’s moral law provides general equity principles relevant to civil justice operates well within confessional bounds. A candidate who argues that the state should enforce the specific penal sanctions of the Mosaic judicial code (like capital punishment for idolatry, blasphemy, or heresy) has, in our judgment, crossed a boundary that the General Assembly has already established.

This distinction maps directly onto the spectrum of Christian Nationalist positions. 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.

Presbyteries examining candidates who hold to Theonomic Reconstruction or Christian Nationalist views should therefore apply the test the General Assembly has already provided: does the candidate’s position comport with the teaching of WCF 19.4, that the judicial laws of Israel “expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require”? If so, the view is permissible.

If the candidate insists that specific Mosaic civil penalties retain binding authority over modern nations, the position falls outside the confessional standard, not because of a novel determination, but because the PCA has already spoken to this question with considerable clarity. In short, the PCA has ruled that the Confession’s language about “general equity” acknowledges that the principles underlying the Old Testament judicial laws may have continuing application, but it rejects the position that those laws are binding in their specific provisions upon modern states.

The Committee believes therefore that a PCA officer who holds that Old Testament civil law is normative for modern states in its specific provisions (as opposed to its general equity) is out of accord with WCF 19.4 and should declare this difference to the relevant church court.

Some contemporary expressions of Christian Nationalism are intertwined with views about ethnic or racial identity. This conflation is such a serious concern that the 52nd General 28 Assembly issued a statement condemning “any theological or political teaching which posits 29 a superiority of race or ethnic identity born of immutable human characteristics,” providing clear denominational guidance on the issue.

It is the view of the Committee 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 Committee wishes to distinguish carefully, however, between Ethno-Nationalism and the fact that cultural and linguistic differences exist within the body of Christ. The PCA itself maintains Korean-language Presbyteries, reflecting the practical reality that worship and fellowship may be enriched when conducted in a shared language. We note, in this connection, that the Director of MNA’s Korean-American Ministries is always careful to insist that these are “PCA Korean language Presbyteries” and not “Korean Presbyteries”, in order to illustrate that the existence of such structures does not imply ethnic superiority or exclusion. Instead, it reflects the church’s mission to reach all people in their own languages and cultural settings. Pastors and Sessions should be alert to the difference between healthy cultural expression in church life and ideological commitments that elevate ethnicity to a position of theological or political supremacy.

Finally, this section on the role of the church/pastors in politics I found very helpfully articulated and clarified. It’s probably, in my opinion, one of the most helpful sections in that it addresses a common concern among church members that their pastors are either being too political, or not political enough. This helpfully highlights where those boundaries are:

Any discussion of the PCA Constitution and Christian Nationalism must address the doctrine of the spirituality of the church. This doctrine, historically associated with the Southern Presbyterian tradition and articulated by Thornwell (and others), holds that the church, as an institution, is a spiritual body with a spiritual mission and should not pronounce on matters outside its spiritual jurisdiction.

The doctrine is reflected in BCO 3-4, which states: The power which Christ has committed to His Church is not vested in the special officers alone, but in the whole body. The Holy Scriptures are the only rule of faith and practice. No church judicatory may make laws to bind the conscience. All church power is only ministerial and declarative, since the Holy Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and manners.

And BCO 3-2 further states: This power, as exercised by the church, is exclusively spiritual; that of the Holy Scripture in all questions of doctrine and duty.

The spirituality of the church doctrine has implications that lead in at least two directions.

In one, it urges that the institutional church ought not to make pronouncements on specific questions of political arrangement or policy that go beyond the clear teaching of Scripture and the Standards. For example, the church as church does not endorse candidates, propose legislation, or advocate for specific forms of government.

In the other, the doctrine does not mean that Scripture has nothing to say about civil government, or that the church may not teach what Scripture teaches about the duties of magistrates, the foundations of justice, or the moral principles that should govern civil society. WCF 23 is itself a confession about civil government, and teaching it is well within the church’s spiritual jurisdiction.

The spirituality of the church doctrine also does not prohibit individual Christians, including ordained officers, from engaging in political life in their capacity as citizens. An elder who runs for office, advocates for legislation consistent with Christian moral principles, or participates in political organizations is not necessarily violating the doctrine of the spirituality of the church as found in the Constitution of the PCA. Instead, he is exercising his calling as a citizen.

The distinction to make is that between the institutional church acting as church (which is limited to its spiritual jurisdiction), and individual Christians acting as citizens (which is not so limited).

Some proponents of Christian Nationalism have argued that the doctrine of the spirituality of the church has been misapplied in the PCA to create a false separation between faith and public life, and that it has sometimes been invoked to silence prophetic witness on issues where Scripture speaks clearly. This criticism is not without merit. The doctrine has at times been used as a pretext for the church’s failure to address clear moral evils, like the institution of slavery and its aftermath. The abuse of a doctrine, though, does not invalidate the doctrine itself or its proper use. Correctly understood, the doctrine of the spirituality of the church protects both the church from politicization, and the state from ecclesiastical overreach. It is a constitutional principle that serves the PCA well and should not be discarded in the name of greater political engagement.

There’s much more insight to be had, here, and I’d encourage you to read the full report especially if you’re a member in a PCA church.

You can find the partial report here.