Christian Nationalism and the PCA

[jwright82]

Christian Nationalism in the PCA – Jude 3 & PCA

jude3pca.org

Is this actually a problem for us to deal with? Christian Nationalism is a debated thing but how serious should any NAPARC church take it? Couldn't it just be handled on a case by case basis in individual churches? Thoughts on this and the prospects of a study community in the PCA ?
I'm personally not a CN but people can think what they want, as long as it's not causing problems. I don't know, what are y'all's thoughts on this.

 

[MatthewBall]

I don't know how it would even be possible to have a study committee on something that is so loosely defined. I agree with you, brother. CN is not a prominent issue in the PCA. Non-ordained "Deaconesses" and "Shepherdesses" on the other hand...

 

[B.L.]

Like most labels it really depends on how it is defined and the problem as I see it is it's a diverse umbrella term that means different things to different people. So, if it was to be studied one would have to first define what it is and the very task of doing so would reduce the "problem" down to a size that likely wouldn't square with most who claim to be a Christian Nationalist and thus might not be worth the time and energy.

The PCA churches in my immediate area lean progressive and I don't think this kind of boogey-man has been seen in the flesh in these parts.

P.S. Like brother Matthew stated above, however, we've got big challenges with the roles of women in the church.

 

[Edward]

A liberal attempt to distract us from the real issues in the PCA?

 

[arapahoepark]

While it's not prominent and is rather fringe, unfortunately many young, and immature (loud?), men are flocking to those who proudly wear the label and are veering off into blatant racism. Perhaps it's the logical conclusion?

 

[MW]

I'd be interested to know why. These types of things used to be openly debated, sometimes vehemently. A new generation has come on the scene wanting to close doors on old discussions. The question is, Why? I have an inkling what the reason might be, but I would like to hear your thoughts. I am wary of anyone who wants to establish new boundaries of orthodoxy.

 

[jwright82]

I'd be interested to know why. These types of things used to be openly debated, sometimes vehemently. A new generation has come on the scene wanting to close doors on old discussions. The question is, Why? I have an inkling what the reason might be, but I would like to hear your thoughts. I am wary of anyone who wants to establish new boundaries of orthodoxy.

I do too. I am really more curious about who's defining it? If it's kinda like we all know what the problem could be but does define down to essentially no one? Like we all know what a CN is but is it worthy of a study committee?

 

[arapahoepark]

I'd be interested to know why. These types of things used to be openly debated, sometimes vehemently. A new generation has come on the scene wanting to close doors on old discussions. The question is, Why? I have an inkling what the reason might be, but I would like to hear your thoughts. I am wary of anyone who wants to establish new boundaries of orthodoxy.

I believe it's because it's morphing into something else, or they are associating with those who are unbiblical.

 

[Alex Moore]

Glory to God that the nation was once Christian, allowing for institutions like the PCA to exist. By his grace, through national repentance, revival, and reformation, may that Christian status return.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

I saw an interesting take on "Nationalism" on substack this morning: Liah Greenfeld: Elites angry at voters are "suffering from a kind of mental illness". It gives "nationalism" a new view

 

[RamistThomist]

Speaking as an official critic of CN, nations are good but the way the CN types framed the debate was awful. Not to mention their later antics, bordering on (and in some cases explicitly labeling themselves as) white supremacism, didn't help.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Glory to God that the nation was once Christian, allowing for institutions like the PCA to exist. By his grace, through national repentance, revival, and reformation, may that Christian status return.

Its Constitution from the beginning allows for all religious institutions to exist - how is that "Christian"? How can a nation return to what it has never been?

Better to pray that, through national repentance, revival, and reformation, the nation will finally submit to and confess Christ as King and establish a Christian Church.

 

[Alex Moore]

From its first English settlers, through the establishment of official state churches, to the supreme court ruling of the Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892), there was no confusion about the distinctly Christian identity of the nation. Grace and peace.

 

[Northern Crofter]

From its first English settlers...

...who were part of a Christian nation - the one the American colonies left to eventually create a disestablished state.

through the establishment of official state churches

During the period of the Articles of Confederation (1781-1789), several states did have established churches, but the process of disestablishment was already underway, something that was finalized in the adoption of the new Constitution with its First Amendment. Many of the ideals of the American Revolution and its Declaration of Independence were lost in the later Constitution, including an explicit appeal to God.

to the supreme court ruling of the Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892)

In Public Citizen v. Department of Justice, 491 U.S. 440 (1989), Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, rejected this approach. When Brewer wrote the opinion for Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, he affirmed "Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania." That our laws are influenced by Christian principles cannot be denied - but that does not make it a Christian nation. Where in the Constitution is the Christian identity of the nation recognized?

there was no confusion about the distinctly Christian identity of the nation

What about presently? I don't see a very Christian identity in this nation. Doesn't the whole purpose of the CN movement (to make the US a Christian nation) imply that it is currently not?

 

[DanSSwing]

Its Constitution from the beginning allows for all religious institutions to exist - how is that "Christian"? How can a nation return to what it has never been?

Better to pray that, through national repentance, revival, and reformation, the nation will finally submit to and confess Christ as King and establish a Christian Church.

It's actually debatable whether the framers even considered non-Christian religions to be "religions" in modern parlance. "Religions" probably meant something more like "Christian denominations" to them.
[automerge]1744050563[/automerge]

What about presently? I don't see a very Christian identity in this nation. Doesn't the whole purpose of the CN movement (to make the US a Christian nation) imply that it is currently not?

That's because the United States is no longer a nation-state, if it ever was. There are now multiple nations, one of which is Christian, and others which oppose it, co-existing to some extent within America.

 

[Northern Crofter]

It's actually debatable whether the framers even considered non-Christian religions to be "religions" in modern parlance. "Religions" probably meant something more like "Christian denominations" to them.

It at least meant Judaism and Roman Catholicism. See President Washington's reply to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island (which had thanked him "For all the Blessings of civil and religious liberty which we enjoy under an equal and benign administration") dated 21 August 1790 : "The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support." See also his letter "To Roman Catholics in America" which he concluded by saying, "may the members of your Society in America, animated alone by the pure spirit of Christianity, and still conducting themselves as the faithful subjects of our free Government, enjoy every temporal and spiritual felicity."

The CN movement seems to want a very similar version of a "Christian nation" that Washington presided over, a version that is not confessional, allowing for an ecumenical "general Christianity" majority instead of a state where "the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed." (WCF 23.3)

 

[Alexander Suarez]

. . .the process of disestablishment was already underway, something that was finalized in the adoption of the new Constitution with its First Amendment.

As a point of historical precision, it is my understanding that the final disestablishment to occur was in 1833 of Massachusetts. Others such as New Hampshire or Connecticut lasted until 1817 and 1818. As late as 1845, the Supreme Court decision, Permoli v. Municipality No. 1 of the City of New Orleans, stated the following:

The Constitution of the United States makes no provision for protecting the citizens of the respective states in their religious liberties; this is left to the state constitutions and laws.

 

[jwright82]

Its Constitution from the beginning allows for all religious institutions to exist - how is that "Christian"? How can a nation return to what it has never been?

Better to pray that, through national repentance, revival, and reformation, the nation will finally submit to and confess Christ as King and establish a Christian Church.

Although I didn't intend for this to devolve into an establishment discussion, I can see why that happened. My original question was should the PCA even be worried about this? Is it that big of a problem to deserve a study committee?
As far as establishment discussions go, I can see a similar problem that any discussion is plagued with and that is definitional, what does "confessing Christ as King" actually mean in a nuts and bolts type of discussion? I have no idea and further abstract statements don't really answer that.
But I do not think linking CN to Theonomy, Establishment principles, or Reconstruction is fair or helpful. I see them as different things all together.
I didn't choose your response for any other reason than it reflected the definitional problem. Other responses would have been just as fine.

 

[Northern Crofter]

As a point of historical precision, it is my understanding that the final disestablishment to occur was in 1833 of Massachusetts. Others such as New Hampshire or Connecticut lasted until 1817 and 1818. As late as 1845, the Supreme Court decision, Permoli v. Municipality No. 1 of the City of New Orleans, stated the following:

Good point, brother. The Constitution originally barred only the federal government from establishing a State religion, but in this area (and many others), individual states had quite a bit of freedom. I believe the shift fully took effect post Civil War in this area (and, again, in many others):

Post Civil War, the application of the First Amendment has been extended through the 14th Amendment's equal protection and due process clauses, which have been interpreted by the Supreme Court to apply the protections of the First Amendment to state and local governments as well. This means that neither the federal nor a state legislature can establish a religion or interfere with the free exercise of religion either (this became known as "the Incorporation Doctrine"). So, while the First Amendment originally only restricted Congress, since the Civil War and the amendments of that post-war era, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted it in such a way that states are also prohibited from establishing a religion or preventing the free exercise of religion. This was confirmed in cases like Everson v. Board of Education (1947), where the Supreme Court explicitly ruled that the Establishment Clause applies to the states through the 14th Amendment.
[automerge]1744138022[/automerge]

As far as establishment discussions go, I can see a similar problem that any discussion is plagued with and that is definitional, what does "confessing Christ as King" actually mean in a nuts and bolts type of discussion?

I think it's always important to separate the current notion of CN from the confessional one.

 

[DanSSwing]

The CN movement seems to want a very similar version of a "Christian nation" that Washington presided over, a version that is not confessional, allowing for an ecumenical "general Christianity" majority instead of a state where "the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed." (WCF 23.3)

That's probably true. Many are probably also under the delusion that modern "Jews" are still a unique people of God and will be saved as long as they make a half-hearted effort to follow the law of Moses.

 

[WithinThePale]

Christian Nationalism in the PCA – Jude 3 & PCA

jude3pca.org

Is this actually a problem for us to deal with? Christian Nationalism is a debated thing but how serious should any NAPARC church take it? Couldn't it just be handled on a case by case basis in individual churches? Thoughts on this and the prospects of a study community in the PCA ?
I'm personally not a CN but people can think what they want, as long as it's not causing problems. I don't know, what are y'all's thoughts on this.

Christian Nationalism is an attempt to blend Christianity and Statism, which are two entirely separate religions, and merge to form something which is not Christianity, and normally kills people and destroys Christ's church. Hopefully it can be handled locally, but it might not be a bad idea to do some surveying to see if innovations are being brought in from this angle, and publish advice against them, which I think the PCA should already have covered via Review and Control?

 

[cthorn14]

Based on the wide variation of responses to this topic in recent threads, I think it would be a good idea for Presbyteries/Synods to study this issue. It is obviously capturing the church's attention.

Even if the broad "CN" label is difficult/impossible to define, an informed survey of the different views being advocated and how they relate and/or diverge from 1646/1789 confessions would hopefully provide a good starting point for these discussions.