The anodyne, the worrying, and the flat-out confusing

The PCA has had the kindness to tell us what we should think about Christian Nationalism, at least for now. Among their Affirmations and Denials (Point 3, page 8), they have even made ‘clear’ the ways in which the church may speak to the state on political matters. Some of what they say is anodyne; some of it is confusing; some of it is alarming. None of it is particularly good, barring the first sentence which the rest seeks to vitiate: “We affirm the right of the institutional church to address civil government on all matters to which the Holy Scriptures speak.”

That’s a strong claim, of course; 2 Timothy 3:16-17 makes clear that Scripture speaks on everything the civil government does that has any element of morality, which is basically everything anybody cares about. But, to be honest, I don’t think the PCA has accepted that conclusion, necessary though it may be. Why? Read on.

The Anodyne

Some of what the PCA says in this report is right in ways that no Christian will argue with. The anodyne statement in this section, since it eschews the report’s usual ‘unjustified language is unjustified’ chorus, is to say that the church cannot bind anybody’s conscience without express warrant from the Word of God. Now, unless our definition of ‘express’ is strict, so that implications are left out (contra WCF 1.6), this is something no Christian will argue with. It’s also a rather weak statement; once again, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 makes clear that Scripture speaks sufficiently on every moral question.

The Worrying

The report states that the church may “address civil government… by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, when asked by the magistrate to do so” (pg 8). They cite, in proof, Section 31.4 of the Westminster Confession of Faith, a citation that frankly makes no sense, as 31.4 is the section which denies the infallibility of church synods. Go read it for yourself; the citation is ludicrous and lends no authority to the report’s assertions.

Worse, though, than empty citation, is what they are saying: the church may not speak to civil government’s evil except in two circumstances: when the magistrate asks for the church’s opinion (!!!), and in the ”extraordinary” case, by “humble petition.” The question I have is: what’s an extraordinary case? By my estimate, America generates those at more than weekly; by the PCA’s estimate, obviously, the country is doing considerably better. Regardless, the verdict is clear: the church is to be mostly silent when it comes to talking to the government.

Phineas, Nathan, and Ezra would all be slightly puzzled by this stance, I wot.

The Confusing

But what about talking about the government? Well, the church is “duty bound” to speak on “matters of Biblical morality and Christian obedience, even when doing so touches upon current debates in the contemporary political landscape.” What this actually means, the report declines to say; it only makes certain that “we deny that it is the responsibility of the institutional church to intermeddle in civil or political affairs.” Presumably this means institutional meddling, but altogether the report omits to mention what, precisely, the church can talk about in the public sphere (and how it avoids becoming Christian Nationalism when the church talks about political morality); it prefers to spend much more time repeating that the institutional church may not talk to the institution of the state (except by request or extremity) or connect with it institutionally.

Sum

The directive of the PCA’s report, here, is that the church should mostly just shut up. It can talk off in its corner, perhaps, but it must be careful that it never talks to the government’s face. It can gossip about the government, through insinuations, but it may not boldly proclaim God’s law over the state. That, you see, would be institutional meddling; that would be a contumacy that (apparently) implies church synods are infallible. I could call this cowardice, and I will, but more importantly, the PCA seems compromised, speaking with a voice that has accepted the culture’s substrate and assumptions, hard on the right, soft on the left. The state is the new American idol, and the PCA isn’t willing to call it Baal- except when somebody wants to burn the Asherim.

God bless.