The PCA’s interim report sort-of-on Christian Nationalism places a strong emphasis on the ‘spirituality’ of the church. The church, it avers, ought not to make “pronouncements on specific questions of political arrangement or policy that go beyond the clear teaching of Scripture and the Standards” (pg 26). Indeed, the report seems almost contemptuous of the state’s potential  for good, saying, in point 12 of its Affirmations and Denials, that the gospel “does not require the assistance of the civil magistrate” (pg. 11). But is this contempt justified? Can we support the report’s position?

Their Position

Earlier in the piece, on page 5 in the Pastoral Letter (a document whose four points are: political theology is good; racism is bad; crass language is bad; and political theology ought not to be a significant concern), the report states that, “The spiritual mission of the church must not be understood… to deny the responsibility of the elders of the church to teach everything the Word of God has to say about the duties of Christian citizens in society.” None should disagree. A church that teaches only a part of the counsel of God is inflicting terrible damage.

I can say, “Teach God’s whole counsel,” but if I then tell you what to teach and it isn’t God’s whole counsel, my initial instruction is no defense. The PCA report does not dare to repudiate the teaching of political theology- but it sure discourages it from being anywhere near prominent, despite history since before the Puritans telling us how terrible an idea it is to let the world define what our civil government should look like. The report exhibits a consistent contempt for the civil sphere and indeed for anything outside the ‘message of the gospel.’ 

A later part of the Pastoral Letter says the following: “We believe that the development of a thoroughly scriptural and Reformed political theology must not distract from but rather serve [the Gospel].” How the development of a “thoroughly Scriptural and Reformed political theology” could distract from the Gospel message, I leave you to imagine; perhaps I have misunderstood Psalm 119’s instruction that the Christian should immerse himself in the law. But the report is clear: we ought not to be too focused on political theology.

The report puts it thus: “In our judgment, the greatest need of the church is for spiritual renewal. Let us bow before our God in heartfelt grief and repentance for our worldliness and many divisions and seek a fresh endowment of the Holy Spirit to bless the ministry of the means of grace. While the issues involved in the debates around Christian Nationalism are important, we believe that it will be when the church unites in persistent prayer and goes forth in courageous gospel witness that Christ’s kingdom will advance in our generation.”

The obvious point of problem here is that “goes forth in courageous gospel witness” is an empty statement without the law. Christ says that, “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments,” and, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him” (John 14:15,23). If our gospel witness lacks obedience to the law, therefore, it lacks the gospel (James 2:14-17). The PCA is essentially telling men that nails are unimportant because their job is to build a house.

Worse, because the law is crucial to the gospel, being the foundation of repentance (Mark 1:15) and the guide of salvation (2 Tim. 3:16-17), the report’s contempt for political theology, for the fullness of the law, amounts to false testimony as to the nature of the gospel. Political theology may not be directly decisive in salvation (though it’s no farther than ecclesiology; the heresy of salvation-by-state is no farther from God than that of salvation-by-church-institution); but it is an integral (James 2:10) part of His law, of the gospel message. Contempt for one part of God is in principle contempt for His whole (as Reformed theologians familiar with Divine simplicity should know) (Ex. 20:7).

Yet the PCA’s interim report is clear. Issues of political theology are important, but, as point 12 will later make clear (pg 11), they aren’t really important. We should be focusing on the Gospel, on spreading the Good News of Christ to all men. Nevermind the “law of liberty” which brings “blessing” (James 1:25); nevermind that we need to know righteousness in order to carry out those works which are our witness to the world. Nevermind that a Christian who does not know the fullness of the law cannot call the world to full repentance (Mark 1:15). The Gospel, boys, that’s the thing.

As with most of this report’s wrongdoing, the malfeasance resides mostly in implication and comparative emphasis. They say all the right things, and then they imply an imbalance which neuters the virtue of their signalling.

Point 12

Point 12 of the Affirmations and Denials section establishes a contrast. On the one hand, the institutional church (distinguished for once from the church in general) is utterly crucial: “The spread of the gospel, the progress of the kingdom of Christ in the world, and the building of the church in every nation depends upon the blessing of the Spirit of God, on the ministry of the Word and the faithful, often costly, testimony of God’s people” (pg 26) (comma added for grammar). By contrast, the state is effectively superfluous: “[The spread of the gospel, the progress of the kingdom of Christ in the world, and the building of the church in every nation] does not require the assistance of the civil magistrate” (pg 26).

No Christian will deny that the blessing of His Spirit is necessary to these things, and while not strictly necessary (Luke 19:40), His servant’s faithfulness (in following the law (John 13:34-35; 1 John 5:3)) is the appointed means of spreading the gospel (Matt. 18:18-20). Observe the contrast, though, in how the report treats the two governments. The report, issued by agents of a church government, considers the institutional church’s involvement to be utterly critical, and it treats the civil government as effectively irrelevant. Why God spent so much time on civil government’s law, I don’t know, given this ‘fact.’

The institutional church is more directly involved in evangelism than civil government is (though it’s by no means integral to evangelism, however helpful). This fact does not justify the report’s evident contempt for civil government, nor does it mean that civil government is irrelevant to the spread of His word. Leaving aside historic instances such as Edward VI making England welcoming to the Reformation, the British Empire opening the world to missionaries, or Olaf the Confessor opening Norway to Christendom, the civil government is ordained to do us good (Rom. 13:1-7), good that includes helping the Gospel spread to all the elect. Civil government may not be indispensable, but it sure is helpful.

More, God gave us the responsibility to carry out church government. He tells us to rule righteously (Phil. 4:13); He gives His people the world to steward (Gen. 1:28; Matt. 5:5, 28:18-20; 1 Cor. 15:26). Even if our efforts were doomed, moreover, it would be our duty to apply His law in full, not flinching from an iota (Matt. 5:17-18; Col. 3:23). The report demeans civil government as useless to the spread of the gospel, as a proper but extremely subordinate concern of the Christian. But dare we say that, when God has told us to be righteous governors? Remember, “Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it” (James 2:10); consider also Haggai 2:10-19: can we expect Him to prosper our evangelism while we ignore a part of His law?

God bless.

Appendix: Proof

Notably, throughout these sections (see pages 11,26-27), the report only once cites Scripture. Several doctrinal statements are cited, sort-of including the WCF, but Scripture comes up only once, being used in order to reprove the strawman Christian Nationalists who believe the state will save men’s souls (pg 11) (Those heretics exist, but they aren’t the serious part of the question). This paucity of Biblical proof is remarkable, though admittedly not unique to these sections (I am confident in saying that I’ve cited more Scripture in this article than they do in the entire Report).

This paucity does not in itself mean they are wrong; that was shown by answering their statements from Scripture. But it is worrying. Why does the PCA’s committee feel free to simply assert without reference to Scripture? A church document ought to bristle with Scriptural citations; experts on this topic ought to have a slew at the ready, apropos and probative. Instead, we get… this.

“To the teaching and to the testimony! If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn” (Is. 8:20).