Are pagans the best rulers?

The PCA’s getting-less-recent interim report on Christian Nationalism’s relationship with ethno-nationalism, commonly billed as a statement on Christian Nationalism, has takes the time to twice denounce the removal of political power from non-Christians for their non-Christianity, for their hatred of God (my words). In Affirmations & Denials #5-6, the PCA committee states that paganism may not be grounds for “exclusion from public office” or “disenfranchisement of citizens” (which I take to mean removal of the vote). What is curious, besides the lack of good proof for their position (more on that), is that Scripture recommends both removals of political power.

Proof

The proof which the committee offers is a citation and half-marked quotation of the Westminster Confession of Faith, Article XXIII, Section 3. When we read that section, however, no direct proof of protecting pagan political powers is made. Indeed, only one clause credibly applies to non-Christians (“It is the duty of civil magistrates… that no person is allowed, on the pretense of either religion or of opposition to a religion, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person….”). The problem here is that unless pagans have a right to political power, then it is no true indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to remove that power from them; the clause thus only forbids extra-legal seizure of those political powers. The legal removal of them, such as by Constitutional amendment, is perfectly consistent with the citation.

(While we’re here: the committee also cites this section to say 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.” “All religions” here seems to mean ‘all religions’ in the colloquial sense, whereas the WCF clearly limits its endorsed promotion to “denominations of Christians” in their “religious and ecclesiastical assemblies” [italics mine]. Perhaps we should worry about some religious pluralism in the PCA, or at least a blindness to its dangers.)

Scripture’s Position

Our responsibility, as civil magistrates (Gen. 9:5-6), albeit often in a relatively minimal position (citizen & voter), is to rule with justice. The right to constitute a polity is in all men (Gen. 9:5-6); the right to a particular power in that polity, such as voter or officer, is granted as a part of the constitution of the polity as a means to secure justice (Deut. 17:14-20). The goal of civil government is justice; we have a duty, therefore, to form it so as to most surely accomplish that goal.

Decreasing the political power of those who avowedly hate God (Ps. 53:1) is an effective way to further that goal, to fulfil that duty. The man who hates God will hate His law, the standard of justice; his work as a ruler, whether voter or officer, will be work against His justice, a work inconsistently direct (wicked men can work against wicked ends; a communist can work against corruption or a corporatist against communism) but very real nonetheless. It will be a work, moreover, against His people and their interests, for the pagan hates those who love Him (John 15:18-19). Thus, expelling pagans from public office through legal means is a righteous and proper part of fulfilling the WCF’s commission to civil magistrates, whereas the PCA’s condemnation actually works against the WCF’s injunction.

Proverbs 14:34 and 29:2 are both incredibly clear on the inadvisability of wicked rulers. The second one reads, “When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.” The PCA’s statement amounts to a demand that the wicked be allowed to rule; thus, they work towards having a people which groans beneath its government. Wise government forbids such treachery; wise government demands that we remove from avowed pagans such political power as has been or could be invested by our form of government.

God bless.