The PCA recently released an ‘interim report’ to some furor. The topic? In all the PR, Christian Nationalism (but more on that soon). The report itself is thirty-five pages that aren’t worth your time; the writing would be unexceptional if it weren’t for its one virtue. See, it’s really, really hard to pin down. They don’t say much straight, except the stuff we all agree on (racism bad, establishmentarianism is a little odd but not heretical, etc). If you want to get a solid understanding of how to response to Christian Nationalism, this paper is not the right place to go. But I’ll be attempting, regardless, to analyze and answer it on a variety of important points. Tonight, we’re starting with, “What is Christian Nationalism, according to the report?”

Clarification

Before we continue, we need to get one of the many, many confounding factors out of the way. While the report is from the “Ad-Interim Committee on Christian Nationalism,” Christian Nationalism per-se is not what the committee was told to study. The committee, according to page 1 of the report, was assembled “to study the relationship between Christian Nationalism, Ethno-Nationalism, and related teachings.” Obviously, unless Christian Nationalism is inherently or universally ethno-nationalist, this mission is different from the headline mission- and that matters. If the report is proffered as ostensibly on Christian Nationalism, and it’s not actually on Christian Nationalism, that’s  a lie; it’s bear false witness against a neighbor, particularly since the true topic would result in a much more negative take than Christian Nationalism, a result now being placed on Christian Nationalism.

Alternatively, the authors of the report need to publicly amend it, in a way as publicized as the initial release, to state that the report is not actually on the topic they were commissioned to report on. With this and with all condemnation I make regarding the report’s falsity, the authors can plead that, rather than being liars, they are just incompetent (though the incompetence present amounts to malicious negligence unless they are simply insufficiently intelligent, at which point the PCA is culpable for the ill appointments).

General Hostility

Now, the report is adept at not saying outright whether Christian Nationalism or theonomy is good or bad; indeed, it doesn’t even really state explicitly what the default position, the report’s position, actually is on the relevant topic. That’s left to implication, like the condemnation, and is made exceptionally vague by the refusal to define multiple terms critical to understanding their perspective on the Westminster Confession of Faith they paraphrase repeatedly without really explaining (terms like “general equity” and “expired” and “relevance” and “wholesome laws”).

One fact, however, is clear, both from the nature of the commission (connecting CN to ethno-nationalism) and from the tone-tenor of the paper: the report is hostile to Christian Nationalism. Its repeated reminders that ‘not everybody who says they are Christian Nationalists actually believes in [list of horrid things]’ emphasize that such horrors are the expected, default CN position; you don’t say ‘not all of them are evil’ when you’re dealing with good guys. The tone overall, too, is the sort that only sounds unbiased if you agree with its condemnation.

At the very least, we can be certain that the report is hostile to Christian Nationalism on a doctrinal level. Page 20 reminds the reader, “It’s equally important to note that members who are troubled by Christian Nationalist ideas in the culture and who want their church to take a strong stand against any form of Christian Nationalism must also be shepherded with care.” Now, this appears quite level-headed and proper out of context, and out of context, I would mostly agree. Christian Nationalism and anti-Christian Nationalism can both go wrong (more on that later). The issue comes when we compare the previous paragraph’s condemnation of Christian Nationalists to this paragraph’s warning on anti-CNers.

Witness:

“Even so, a member who aggressively promotes views that create division in the congregation, who disparages the PCA’s constitutional commitments, who uses Christian Nationalist ideology to justify [racism], or who prioritizes political agitation at a level that undermines the ministry of the Word and sacraments risks engaging in behaviors that violate the fifth membership vow. Under these circumstances, the Session’s responsibility is to shepherd such members with patience and clarity, distinguishing between honest intellectual disagreement on political theology and behavior that genuinely threatens the peace and purity of the church” (Pages 19-20).

On the one hand, then, pastors are warned that those who are in favor of Christian Nationalism may be racists and rabble-rousers; on the other hand, they are warned that those who are “troubled” by Christian Nationalism must be restrained from going to far in remedying the issue. Christian Nationalism is a bad doctrine, one that leads astray, but not everybody uses the label accurately; anti-CN is not treated as bad doctrine, but some people go too far. This treatment only makes sense if CN is bad doctrine.

What is Christian Nationalism?

The report gives a number of different definitions and positions. The doctrinal positions (enumerated on pg 21-26) include general equity non-theonomy (the apparent default position), which you get the distinct impression isn’t really Christian Nationalism; the ‘nursing father’ position, wherein the magistrate is benevolent to Christians specifically; 1646 WCF Establishmentarianism (permitted but not liked); theonomy, a dubious theology that is OK only in its mildest forms; and racism (ethno-nationalism). Non-theonomist Christian Nationalists like Stephen Wolfe get ignored, apparently, since he doesn’t fit particularly well in any of their categories (he probably fits ‘nursing father’ best, but that suggestion would probably give the authors hives, since that’s almost their position).

But what is the distinctive characteristic of Christian Nationalism?

See, all those doctrinal distinctives are just components of the movement; what is it overall? The answer, if we base our estimate on the report, looking at what critiques are levelled, looking at the Affirmations & Denials, is that Christian Nationalism has two primary cohorts: racists who like to cuss out woman and a bunch of rubes who use the name without knowing any better. Where theonomists fit, I don’t know, except they don’t fall into that second category. Thanks.

Conclusion

This view of Christian Nationalism is incomplete to the point of being a lie. The label has been adopted by a fair few racists, I’ll admit (Webbon and Fuentes seem both to fit the category). But they are far from the only people under the label. If the PCA chooses to sort Christian Nationalists into the uninformed and the racist, they will be compelled to lie about vast swathes of people. James White, for instance, is obviously not a racist, but his political theology aligns with what many would call Christian Nationalism (albeit he’s against CN as a movement), since he’s clearly a theonomist, label or not. What about theonomists overall? What about those who think God’s law still matters in civil government and can’t be replaced by man’s inventions (Prov. 3:5), regardless of whether you call on Medieval Scholasticism to generate ‘natural law’? The report’s incompleteness amounts to a lie and to a slander.

As a member of a PCA church, I ask the PCA to repent and amend this wrongdoing.

God bless.