10 Commandments, Christian Living, church, Culture, Government

Christian Nationalism and the Local Church | Staying on the Fairway with Considerations of Truth and Justice

Leave a comment

In the previous installment various doctrinal considerations were examined to encourage the Church to reject the egregious errors that have arisen from some who identify themselves as Christian Nationalists.

A Reformed approach to discerning direction from Scripture is based largely on the clear doctrines and commands included in Scripture. And yet, Christians are also to use their reason to carry those clear statements forward into the present. “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.”[1] It is that good and necessary consequence that is being practiced when drawing sanctified deductions. At this point the focus will mostly be around the last issue raised: the discussions around the Holocaust and the Jews. The Scripture does not give a direct statement of what the Church should do with a novel and controversial views around the veracity of a historical event. However, it can help give some guidelines by considering how the Christian should relate to truth and justice.

First, consider the Bible’s teaching on maintaining the truth, using the ninth commandment as a starting point. This commandment declares: “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”[2] This commandment does not only have bearing on what is said in formal testimony in a court of law. It is making a statement of how man should promote and preserve the truth. The Westminster Larger Catechism explains the Christian’s duties in the commandment as follows:

The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man, and the good name of our neighbor, as well as our own; appearing and standing for the truth; and from the heart, sincerely, freely, clearly, and fully, speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice, and in all other things whatsoever; a charitable esteem of our neighbors; loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name sorrowing for, and covering of their infirmities; freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces, defending their innocency; a ready receiving of a good report, and unwillingness to admit of an evil report, concerning them; discouraging talebearers, flatterers, and slanderers; love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requireth; keeping of lawful promises; studying and practicing of whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report.[3]

There are several things included in this broad exposition of the ninth commandment that are relevant for the topic at hand. The notion of “standing for the truth,” the need for a “charitable esteem of our neighbors,” and the “unwillingness to admit of an evil report” all rise to the top. When it comes to the truth, any kind of speech regarding an inherent superiority based on race is impossible to prove considering the almost limitless variables that shape the outcome of a human being. Any assertion that is made, then, is without certainty of truth. At the same time it is decidedly uncharitable to voice such opinions before brothers and sisters with such a racial makeup, especially if they are fellow heirs in Christ. These objections would address the areas of Kinism and race-realism, especially those race realists who from the “superior” race make convenient statements about those in “lower” races. However, that point seems properly basic, whereas views that minimize the Holocaust are more complicated.

For the claims circulating in books and the Internet regarding the exaggeration of the treatment of the Jews at the hands of the Nationalist Socialist during the Second World War to be true, there is a necessary statement made about those who have contributed to the current historical record. The eye-witness testimony around the abuse of the Jews in Europe in the 30s and 40s comes from so many sources. Many of these are not individuals who have anything to gain from their description of atrocities of the SS. They are neighbors that lived in American communities for decades as fruitful citizens of this country. They are not the movers and shakers of society. They are normal men and women with identification tattoos on their wrists. After the War they mostly settled into “regular” lives without any influence in society beyond their own families and friends.

They are also Christians like Corrie Ten Boom who testify to German oppression and cruelty in The Hiding Place. They are the men, women, and children who survived the concentration camps and testified to the many murders committed by the SS. Former guards, Nazi records, and the testimony of soldiers who liberated the prisoners all point to the predominately accepted historical record. The denial and minimization of the Holocaust accuses all of those witnesses of dishonesty. It is, of course, possible they are all deceiving but given the number who have born witness it would require a very high level of proof to be able to say with certainty that all these people are liars or self-deceived. And if there is even a possibility they are not dishonest, Christians should be wary of calling such people liars and minimizing the injustice committed against Jews and those who would shelter and protect them.

Therefore, since the burden of proof is so high, and because the implication of denying the current account is to call many Christians liars with regard to what they have reported regarding the Nazis should give a Christian pause. A desire to honor the Lord in keeping the ninth commandment should call the Church and individual Christians in it to exercise a tremendous amount of caution when articulating a very novel, minority, and discredited view of history, especially if that view has the potential of creating strife and disunity among God’s people, which leads to the second consideration from good and necessary consequence.

Pastor Geoff Gleason
Cliffwood Presbyterian Church

—————

[1] Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1.6.

[2] Exodus 20:16.

[3] Westminster Larger Catechism, #144.

Christian Living, church, Culture

Christian Nationalism and the Local Church | Staying on the Fairway with Doctrinal Considerations

2 Comments

As this series wraps up the question is being asked, “How does the Church stay on the fairway?” Or how does the Church navigate Christian Nationalism while accepting the good and discarding the bad. Last installment looked at some biblical consideration that would help the Church in its gracious pursuit of the truth. Part of faithfulness comes from recognizing error. From the basic biblical considerations considered before come more specific doctrinal objections to some of the “water hazards” that have been promoted by some thinkers in the Christian Nationalism camp.

Total Depravity

The first doctrinal consideration is that of total depravity. It is crucial to hold to a biblically true and faithful account of the depravity of all men. When the Westminster Confession of Faith treats the effects of man’s fall into sin, it describes it as follows: “By this sin (eating the forbidden fruit) they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body.”[1] The Belgic Confession gives a similar definition: “We believe that by the disobedience of Adam original sin has spread throughout the whole human race. It is a corruption of the entire nature of man and a hereditary evil which infects even infants in their mother’s womb.”[2] Perhaps less frequently used, but no less potent than the other Reformed confessions, the Second Helvetic Confession describes man’s state this way: “By sin we understand that innate corruption of man which has been derived or propagated in us all from our first parents, by which we, immersed in perverse desires and averse to all good, are inclined to all evil. Full of all wickedness, distrust, contempt and hatred of God, we are unable to do or even to think anything good of ourselves.”[3]The variety of sources help establish the similarity in views of man’s state after sin in the Reformed theological tradition.

All acknowledge that the depravity of man caused by the fall is now the universal condition of corruption in the entirety of the whole human race. That is important. The sin nature is the same in all men, the sins of action are all alike failures to conform to, or willful transgress the law of God. Because the problems are all the same, all God’s children need the same grace in justification and sanctification. This unified view of the complete depravity of man points to the unity all men have in the one man Adam. The universal total depravity of man has implications for all of the “water hazard” categories above. Take, as an example, Kinism. For the Christian, a mandatory, hard separation between people based on race, as proposed in this philosophy, is not only the wrong line to draw, but it also fights against the future state of unity. Another way to think of it is that the Christian should live today anticipating the great hope of heaven. However, Kinism emphasizes the separation caused by sin rather that the peace that has been purchased by Christ and will be experienced by all the saints.

Comparing the tenets of race realism, this way of thinking draws sweeping conclusions about race and various qualities which even more directly attack the biblical explanation of man, his origins, his nature after the fall, and the hope each believer has of heaven. That is not to imply that there are not differences between people. It is even possible to make specific observations about certain groups living in a certain place at a certain time. By doing so an observer may to point to instances of more egregious sin that is practiced within a particular racial group. However, race realism grounds that deficiency in that race as a whole rather than seeing as a sinful expression confined to one specific time and place. The line Scripture draws is not a matter of race, but rather of sin and righteousness.

When it comes to language which invokes “international Jewry” as the responsible party for society’s evil, it makes moral victims out of sinners exercising their own agency in indulging sin and the flesh. The claims of an “International Jewry” controlling bolshevism, pornography, and banks is a laughable position and easily countered with a simple question: will these vices or sinful systems disappear if this supposed international Jewry were to be removed? A Christian with a biblical understanding of sin will rightly say, “No.” Sin has been expressed in all cultures since the fall. Therefore the problem is not with the man’s ethnicity but rather in the sinful way he is living. And as that is the case, the Christian’s preoccupation is to speak of Christ who is able to forgive any man who comes to Him in faith of his sin, and his ethnicity should be left off altogether.

Sanctification

The second doctrine that has bearing must be clearly understood to protect against distortion from this water hazard views is that of sanctification. The Westminster Confession of Faith defines it as the work of God in a man wherein “the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified; and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.”[4] That same radical change is noted in the Belgic Confession when it says, “We believe that this true faith, worked in man by the hearing of God’s Word and by the operation of the Holy Spirit, regenerates him and makes him a new man. It makes him live a new life and frees him from the slavery of sin.”[5] One further example from the Second Helvetic Confession confirms the agreement of the Reformed theological tradition on this point. It says, “In regeneration the understanding is illumined by the Holy Spirit in order that it may understand both the mysteries and the will of God. And the will itself is not only changed by the Spirit, but it is also equipped with faculties so that it wills and is able to do the good of its own accord (Rom. 8:1ff.).”[6]

The three different confessions describe the same process from different angles. Westminster emphasizes the process at work in the converted believer. The Belgic demonstrates the reality that holiness will be worked out in the believer. The Helvetic point to the changed heart of the believer. Taking them all together, sanctification can be defined as God’s work of changing the heart of the born-again believer so that he most certainly is made new unto holiness. Regeneration and faith precede its application. It is not applied on the basis of kin, race, or Jewishness or a lack thereof. Sanctification is the same unescapable doctrine for anyone who is given new life in Christ.

To think of both the depravity of man and sanctification as universal experiences for all races (recognizing that sanctification is reserved only for believers), These doctrines are expressed without consideration of race. The way to achieve new life in Christ is the same for all people, regardless of race. The effect of new life in Christ is the same, regardless of race. In regeneration, the benefits of the works and blood of Christ are applied to the sinner through faith, exclusively an act of God’s grace. No group of people has a greater need than the other, because “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”[7] All men are equally desperate in their natural condition. The process of sanctification is applied in the same way. The specific expressions of sin that must be mortified may be different based on time and place, but all men are equally in need of being sanctified. Thus, the most that can be said is that for each man there are different sins that need to be addressed. That is not controversial for any observant human being. However, as soon as someone claims or implies that some racial group of people is by nature in more need of sanctification or more resistant to it based on some inherited unchangeable racial quality, that man has lost a proper sense of what God does in sanctifying the regenerated soul.

Creation

A third doctrine that has some bearing on this matter is the doctrine of creation. I do not intend to belabor this point for too long. Confession of Faith chapter 4.2 say that God “created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after his own image.” The Westminster’s point to emphasize is that all men are created after the image of God. The Belgic Confession is silent on this point, but the Second Helvetic makes a similar point to theWestminster Confession when it says, “Scripture says that in the beginning he was made good according to the image and likeness of God.”[8] Any language that implies or states that some have more of the image of God than others stands against this doctrine of creation. And, of course, some will claim that those words have never been used. And that may be correct. However, to imply that some races based on unchangeable traits, are more prone to sin is to make exactly that point, though the words may not be identical.

The biblical record on sin and salvation and the confessional statements’ positions on things like the depravity of man, sanctification, and creation are clear and objective guideposts hammered out in history that inform the Church in the present. However, there are also some other cautions that may perhaps be somewhat less objective and yet are worthy of consideration.

Pastor Geoff Gleason
Cliffwood Presbyterian Church

—————

[1] Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 6.2.

[2] Belgic Confession, Article 15, (as quoted on the Canadian and American Reformed Churches website), accessed January 8, 2026, https://canrc.org/the-belgic-confession#article-15

[3] Second Helvetic Confession, Chapter VIII, (as found on the Christian Classics Ethereal Library website), accessed January 8, 2026, https://ccel.org/creeds/helvetic.htm

[4] Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 13.1.

[5] Belgic Confession, Article 24

[6] Second Helvetic Confession, Chapter IX.

[7] Romans 3:23a.

[8] Second Helvetic Confession, Chapter VII.

10 Commandments, Christian Living, church, Culture, Government

Christian Nationalism and the Local Church | Staying on the Fairway with Biblical Considerations

1 Comment

After a prolonged series of articles critiquing some of the positions espoused by some Christian Nationalists, the series will conclude with some thoughts that should keep the Church from drifting off into error. At worst, the ball will roll into the rough, but the water hazards should be avoided. First to be considered are some biblical considerations. The Bible has made plain distinctions in terms of what should separate people. Even in terms of marriage, it has drawn lines. In 1 Cor. 7:39, quoted above, the limit on the widow is that she would marry in the Lord. Again, it says, “A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.” Let me emphasize the part of the verse that says she is free to marry whom she wishes. There is no limitation here, except one: that he be united to Christ by faith.

There are additional passages that bring clarity to these issues for the Christian. For example, in Ephesians the apostle Paul writes about the removal of the separation between the people of God. There are two groups: Jews and Gentiles. The distinguishing marks between these people have been removed by Christ.

For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.[1]

There are a couple of worthwhile items to note from this text. First, the movement among the Christian community is toward unity not separation. There was a dividing wall between the Jew and the Asian, African, European man, but in Christ that division is removed. Second, consider the use of the word Gentile. The people groups included in that word are all of the ones that are not Jewish. In the Old Testament God dealt the same way with all people that are not Jewish. He did not do so based on any racial consideration, but because of the covenant promises that were given to Abraham, the father of the Jews.

To further flesh out the removal of the distinction between Jew and Gentile there is the Bible’s explanation of the way man is reconciled to God, and there is only one way: through the Lord Jesus Christ. In a text that is often quoted to flatten out any distinction between people at all, it is still correct to note in Galatians 3:27-28 that the way of salvation for all men is singular. In the Lord Jesus Christ, none are treated preferentially. “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”[2] Note the essential unity of all God’s people in Christ. There is no category for separation among God’s people as seen in the fact that they all come to the Lord in the same manner.

The Bible actually recognizes that essential unity both in the area of sin and salvation. It does emphasizing there is no room to create a distinction among people. “For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.”[3] Sin is in all, justification is received as a gift by all, Christ’s blood propitiates for all, and faith is the agent through which that redemption comes for all. But there is separation in the Bible, and there is something to be learned when that happens as well.

What leads to separation in the Bible? Adam separated from God by the Fall. That is the first instance of separation in creation. Before Adam ate the forbidden fruit it was consistently described as good, even “very good.”[4] However, all of that changes drastically through the introduction of sin. After Adam eats, separation happens for the first time. “And they heard the sound of God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.”[5] It is sin that separates man from God. Without sin there would not have been separation. As noted by Abraham Kuyper, “If sin, as a disintegrating force, had not divided humanity into different sections, nothing would have marred or broken the organic unity of our race.”[6] And yet, from that first instance of separation flow all the other ones where people are divided.

Adam and Eve’s family is torn apart when Cain is banished after the murder of his brother Abel (Genesis 4:12). At the Tower of Babel, God confused their language because they were lifted up in pride against Him (Genesis 11:6-7). Abraham and Lot separate because their herdsman are quarreling because of greed (Genesis 13:7). Jacob and Esau go their different ways both because of Jacob’s deception and Esau’s rashness (Genesis 27). When the united kingdom is torn in two it is because of Solomon’s sins of idolatry brought about by the influence of his foreign, idolatrous wives (1 Kings 11:9-11). But this separation is not presented as eternal or unalterable. That can be seen where other foreigners, like Ruth the Moabitess, Rahab of Jericho are accepted in Israel and even included in Christ’s genealogy (Matthew 1:5). Separation was not permanent, or racial.

Even in the Old Testament there was a way for this separation to be reversed, as seen in way the division between Jew and Gentile could be removed. It was not by removing racial distinctions, but by becoming a worshiper of the Lord, marked by the covenant sign of circumcision. “If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it.”[7] All nations could be admitted if they would adopt the worship of the True God and become His people.

The only exclusion that is made is for the Moabites and Ammonites and the reason for their exclusion is not racial, but a matter of sin. “No Ammonite or Moabite may enter the assembly of the LORD. Even to the tenth generation, none of them may enter the assembly of the LORD forever, because they did not meet you with bread and with water on the way, when you came out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you.”[8] Notice that Ammon and Moab suffer from behavioral obstacles which flow from their opposition to God’s people, not any kind of genetic or racial distinctive. And that leads to the biblical conclusion that once sin and enmity are no more, so will the separation be.

The presentation of the church triumphant is not one where division remains. As sin is finally and totally removed in the glorified state, the harmony of creation is restored. “After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, ‘Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!’”[9] There are hints of this final renewal in the inclusion of the foreigner in Israel.

The weight of this biblical presentation must be held up against any kind of exclusion whether in some form of Kinism, race-realism, or anti-semitism. Certainly there is a recognition that there are different kinds of people, but, especially within the Christian church, there is to be a unity among believers. That is because any man who is in Christ is the recipient of God’s perfect love and affection. And if God is pleased to send His Son to be the sacrifice for the guilt of sin for the African, European, Asian, and Jew there should be no place in the church to create division and exclusion.

Pastor Geoff Gleason
Cliffwood Presbyterian Church

—————

[1] Ephesians 2:14-17.

[2] Galatians 3:27-28.

[3] Romans 3:22b-25a.

[4] Genesis 1:31.

[5] Geneses 3:8.

[6] Abraham Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1976), 79-80.

[7] Exodus 12:48.

[8] Deuteronomy 23:3-4.

[9] Revelation 7:9-10.

10 Commandments, Christian Living, church, Government, Race

Christian Nationalism and the Local Church | The Water Hazard of Anti-Semitism and Holocaust Denial

Leave a comment

Last installment dealt with the error of race realism, where racial division is hard-coded based on the assertion of unchangeable, or very difficult to change, characteristics that belong by necessity to different races. Again, the assertion that there are races is not at all controversial, but the core ideas go much beyond a simple observation of difference. Race realism is a water hazard that is beyond simply controversial within the Christian Nationalist movement. It is a view which should be condemned. This installment looks at another water hazard: anti-semitism, holocaust denial, and Hitler rehabilitation.

It is important to state again that Christian Nationalism is not a monolithic movement. Not all Christian Nationalists hold to the controversial views espoused by some, and not all of these controversial positions described above are completely without any expression of truth. A person may, without any fear of contradiction from me, prefer people who look like him. A person may make observations about racial and cultural proclivities. They may even make me chuckle in the way they observe them. Such is the humor of many outstanding comedians. But when opinions and preferences are elevated to doctrine that others must follow, or there are sources of pride connected to race, or statements belittle to sacrifice of Christ who sacrificed Himself in the same way for all His people, it is time to get off the train. At times that line may be difficult to discern, but when it comes to anti-semitism it is not.

There are Christian voices who have made anti-semitic statements. For example, the same Michael Spangler who argues for Race Realism also posted the following on the social media platform X: “I used to write off those who publicly opposed Jews as wild conspiracy theorists. I was wrong. Jews are a real and present danger to Christianity and civilization. Much worse than most Christians are willing to think.”[1] One people group is singled out as uniquely dangerous. This from a man whose feet are self-consciously planted in the “Reformed Camp” of the Christian church. Others, more loosely associated with Christianity have said similar things.

Nick Fuentes, is a self-described Roman Catholic, and Christian Nationalist who has likewise blamed the Jews for a variety social ills. Coleman Hughes, in commenting on some of Fuentes’ rhetoric, isolated the following quote: “Jews are running society. Women need to shut the **** up. Blacks need to be imprisoned, for the most part, and we would live in paradise. It’s that simple.”[2] In my own conversations with people who are sympathetic to him, there is often reference made to international Jewry, or some term like that. There is a certain dark historical connection that can be made using those kinds of terms. And as is commonly said, those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it.

Adolf Hitler described the Jews as follows: “When thus for the first time I recognized the Jew as the cold-hearted, shameless, and calculating director of this revolting vice traffic in the scum of the big city, a cold shudder ran down my back.”[3] In Hitler, there is a sense of mystery, and universal hostility attributed to “the Jew” as a whole, which falls in line with an emphasis of immutable ethnic traits based on genetics. This observation does not mean that Fuentes or other anti-semites are the equivalent of Hitler. He has neither the power nor the opportunity to work out his political theory, so far anyway. However, it does demonstrate that some of the voices within Christian Nationalism share the same vocabulary and tones about the Jews that the National Socialists did in Germany in the 1930s and 40s. The consequences of that philosophy was extremely destructive.

Of course, there are sinful Jewish people. There are those among them who have used their positions to harm God’s people and others, promote selfish gain in finance, and exploited others in their sinful pursuits. However, and it seems almost ridiculous to write this, they are not unique in that regard. It is foolish to assert they have some kind of corner on sin, or are more likely to commit it than other people. Is the Jew the unique enemy of Christ? The enemy of Christ is linked to profession, not race in Scripture: “Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.”[4] Judaism is Christ-hating in that it denies Him as the Savior of the world. However, the Jewish religion is not uniquely Christ-hating. All false religions which by nature oppose the gospel fall into the category of antichrist. And you cannot be further away from Christ than being antichrist. Atrocities can be traced throughout history in a variety of cultures made up of a variety of races associated to a variety of religions. All of them mar the image of the Creator, and all of them deserve the Church’s condemnation.

One other caution to be noted in the area of anti-semitism or the language of international Jewry and those who deny or minimize the Holocaust, or who rehabilitate Hitler to some degree can be included in this category as well: Christians are not saved by an absence of anti-semitism or by historical accuracy of events that transpired in the Second World War. Perhaps these topics deserve an entire article on their own. However, suffice it to say that the eye-witness testimony from Hitler’s inner circle, personal diaries, guards, Kapos and Sonderkommando (conscripted assistants to the guards from among the prisoners), survivors, and observers[5]make it ludicrous that anyone would deny the atrocities of the Nationalist Socialist Party of Germany from 1936 to 1945. However, people may have reasons for questioning the “official” narrative about events in history. Governments and victors have at times marred the true record of certain events. However, it is necessary for the Church to urge its members to tread with caution in this area.

In reacting to certain experiences, human beings tend to over react. People lurch from one extreme to the opposite one. The safe-guard, and sometimes correction, for the Christian is found in the word of God. Whatever voices declare in the public square should be held up against the standards of God’s word. This series will conclude with some considerations of how the Church remains faithful.

Pastor Geoff Gleason
Cliffwood Presbyterian Church

—————

[1] Michael Spangler (@spanglermt), X, March 28, 2023, https://x.com/spanglermt/status/1831347742112625024?s=46&t=7hiGpcl9l9IilWgtZTzKJQ

[2] Coleman Hughes, “Nick Fuentes Knows Exactly What He’s Doing,” The FP | Conversations with Coleman, YouTube video, May 5, 2023, https://youtu.be/mMpUgnAWmTM?si=tZz3XK-y9SmBv7Zm. Quote starts at 5:06.

[3] Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, translated by Ralph Manheim, (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1999), 59.

[4] 1 John 2:22.

[5] A great resource for eye-witness testimony is the book The Holocaust: A New History by Laurence Reese.

 

10 Commandments, Christian Living, church, Race

Christian Nationalism and the Local Church | The Water Hazard of Race Realism

Leave a comment

When it comes to Christian Nationalism, there is much to admire. There are aspects of the movement that are controversial. Still others are ideas the Church should repudiate. This series on Christian Nationalism has been examining these “water hazards” articulated by some within the movement, beginning with Kinism. In this installment, the next error under consideration is race realism.

Race realism is a reaction to the idea of “color blindness” when it comes to the relationship between races. Color blindness is the notion that all people should be viewed without consideration of attributes such as race that are not part of their essence. Coleman Hughes argues for such a view of race in his book The End of Race Politics. He articulates the “colorblind principle as follows: ‘We should treat people without regard to race, both in our public policy and in our private lives.’”[1] As will be seen later, Hughes is not arguing for an artificial denial of the existence of race. Simply put, race should not be a determining factor in how one relates to any one individual. The proponents of race realism react to the idea of complete racial color blindness as naïve and not based in reality. Michael Spangler, a self-professed race-realist, opens his six-part series on Christian race realism with these words: “Race is real. In the recent past most everyone agreed with this. Even children knew that ‘red and yellow, black and white’ described real differences among mankind. And yet today, especially among white Christians, it seems quite common to deny it.”[2] However, Mr. Hughes, as a proponent of the colorblind principle, does not argue that way. He asserts that “we all see race. We can’t help it.”[3]

It is not difficult to recognize that racial differences exist. However, the question is whether a person should be evaluated primarily on the basis of unalterable racial characteristics rather than understanding them in the context of merit, culture and gifts. Race realism promotes identifying racial differences as a defining mark. Spangler’s definition is as follows: “Race realism is the recognition that mankind is divided into distinct races, that the differences between the races are large and relatively permanent, and that this racial diversity ought to be acknowledged, celebrated, and defended.”[4] It is this view that is troublesome.

Although Spangler includes a disclaimer that race realism should not cause division or schism, that qualification is largely left behind as he outlines his argument about racial differences found in nature. Spangler’s race realism embraces racial differences in body, language, culture, morality, religion, and intelligence.[5] Some of this list is not controversial. People are, by and large, not denying physical, linguistic, and cultural differences in various races. However, questions of morality, religion, and intelligence are of a more dubious sort.

When it comes to morality, Spangler argues that though sin is spiritual and race is physical, it is not so easy to separate these two essential parts of man. He says, “Like language, morality is distinct from race in the abstract, but in many respects still inseparable from it in the concrete. Blacks, whites, and Asians act in black, white, and Asian ways, for good or ill.”[6] The unique challenges of the black community in the United States are cited as a case in point. Spangler cites a statistic in which blacks, who make up 12% of the population, account for 64% of the murders. I have not verified that statistic and am willing to assume it as accurately reported for the sake of this discussion.

When it comes to religion, Spangler gives a uniquely American example: the difference between churches made up predominantly of black people vs. white. “If in one Sunday an impartial observer should attend two Protestant churches in one American city, one church white, the other black, the difference he would observe would likely be greater than if he compared two services held on distinct continents, yet in churches made up of the same race.”[7] While admitting that the ancestors of white protestants were initially pagan, the main point he makes remains that such racial change in religion is rare.

When it comes to intelligence, Spangler cites a study, “The Bell Curve” that shows black people in America have, on average, a 15 points lower IQ score than whites. This in turn is used to argue against Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion as a basis for hiring. Spangler uses physicians as an example. Their average IQ score is 120 and he argues that “very few blacks have the requisite intelligence for it.”[8] However, as always, statistics can often be used according to the objective of the one who wields them.

Spangler’s assertions regarding the presented differences between races should not be taken at face value. Despite what Spangler asserts about the data of the Bell Curve study, the conclusions of that study are still actively being disputed. A recent follow-up study published in 2025 by the American Psychological Association describes the complexity of the matter.

The question that still remains is whether the cause of group differences in average IQ is purely social, economic, and cultural or whether genetic factors are also involved. Following publication of The Bell Curve, the American Psychological Association (APA) established an 11-person Task Force (Neisser et al., 1996) to evaluate the book’s conclusions. Based on their review of twin and other kinship studies, the Task Force for the most part agreed with Jensen’s (1969) Harvard Educational Review article and The Bell Curve, that within the White population the heritability of IQ is “around .75” (p. 85). As to the cause of the mean Black–White group difference, however, the Task Force concluded: “There is certainly no support for a genetic interpretation” (p. 97).[9]

I am not here to argue that I understand the complexity of IQ testing or to present myself as an expert in this matter. However, the aim is to dispute Spangler’s conclusions as the necessary ones to draw from that study. To do so is to ignore the vast complexity of human interaction. The many variables that go into social, economic, and cultural formation go far beyond race. For example, when it comes to morality, it is trite and simplistic to cite a discrepancy in the black community in the United States. That is hardly a charitable sample size. It is to single out one race in one specific time and use them as the example for all people who share their racial makeup. This resembles the reasoning employed by proponents of racial reconciliation, anti-racism, and reparations movements who likewise draw sweeping conclusions from group identity. To look at the question of violence and sin against the sixth commandment, a much broader net must be cast which would look more broadly at the sins of humanity.

Simply broadening the scope would easily bring to mind things like the human sacrifice of the pagan white Vikings in Scandinavia, the Tutsi genocide in Rwanda in Africa, the warlike spread of Islam in the Middle East, and the oppression of the Koreans at the hands of the Japanese during the Second World War in Asia. Before white men begin assigning other races as innately more sinful, some probing questions have to be asked of the Caucasian race as well. What should be done with the atrocious paganism of the druids of today’s British Isles, the executions of reformed pastors under Mary Tudor, the reign of terror in the French Revolution, and the horrifying genocides of white cultures in the 20th century under Nazi Germany and Communist Soviet Union? Nations of all ethnicities have acted in great wickedness and it is foolish and dishonest to minimize that fact.

Religiously, God has worked differently at different times and in different cultures. Revival has come, apostasy has arisen, and again, no race can claim victory or defeat in those areas. Think of the places of origin for the Protestant Reformation. Certainly, today’s Germany, the Netherlands, England, and Scotland were places where the highest expressions of Reformed theology were articulated in the creeds, Confessions, and Catechisms they produced. If religion were inherently connected to race you would expect that high view of religion to continue. And yet western European nations have largely abandoned their Reformed heritage. Perhaps the most telling example of the abandonment of religious fervor in such places is the memorial of the ministry of the great Scottish Reformer, John Knox, at St. Giles Cathedral in Edinburgh being reduced to a mere plaque in the ground in its parking lot.

Leaving aside whether the position is argued cogently, the darker implication of Spangler’s race realism are further revealed in some of the conclusions he draws. After agreeing that all men are part of the human race, he says, “Moreover, as with physical bodies, disease can affect some parts more than others: some ethnic members of the human race are marked more than the rest by the disease of sin and its attendant misery, some to the point that they are nearly rotting away.”[10] And herein is the great danger of this view.

To argue for sin as more present in some than in others is a denial of the doctrine of total depravity. In Romans 3:10-18, no qualification is made to the “all” who have gone astray and perpetrated the variety of actual sins listed there which proceed from the sinful nature. To say anything else is a statement of pride that concludes some need Christ more than others. It asserts that some races are more resistant to the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit than others. By implication, some races may be more easily sanctified than others. And yet the bold statements the Bible makes about sin do not contain this kind of qualification. “For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”[11]

The problem of man before God is not found in his physical race. Sin is spiritual, not biological. The guilt and dominion of sin was inherited by all men through Adam’s sin. He bore in his body all the races of man which exist today. All racial combinations proceed from him, and therefore all have the same sin nature, the same propensity to sinful thoughts, words, and deeds, the same need for Christ, and it goes against the record of Scripture to argue otherwise.

There is still another view that has come from Christian Nationalist proponents that deserves the attention of the Church. That is the latent or blatant anti-semitism that is connected with some of its proponents. This water hazard will be the subject of the next article.

Pastor Geoff Gleason
Cliffwood Presbyterian Church

—————

[1] Coleman Hughes, The End of Race Politics, (Penguin Random House, LLC: 2024), 19.

[2] Michael Spangler, “Christian Race Realism, Part 1: Introduction,” Pactum Institute (blog), July 1, 2024, https://www.pactuminstitute.com/the-pactum-blog/christian-race-realism-part-1-introduction.

[3] Hughes, The End of Race Politics, 18.

[4] Michael Spangler, “Christian Race Realism, Part 1”.

[5] Michael Spangler, “Christian Race Realism, Part 3: Nature,” Pactum Institute (blog), July 9, 2024, https://www.pactuminstitute.com/the-pactum-blog/christian-race-realism-part-3-nature.

[6] Michael Spangler, “Christian Race Realism, Part 3”.

[7] Michael Spangler, “Christian Race Realism, Part 3”.

[8] Michael Spangler, “Christian Race Realism, Part 3”.

[9] J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur R. Jensen, “Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability,” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 11, no. 2 (June 2005), 236.

[10] Michael Spangler, “Christian Race Realism, Part 3”.

[11] Romans 3:23.

10 Commandments, Bible, Christian Living, church, Culture, Government

Christian Nationalism and the Local Church | The Water Hazard of Kinism

Leave a comment

In the previous installment, the idea of the water hazards of Christian Nationalism was introduced. Just to be clear, the assertion being made is not that all Christian Nationalists hold these more extreme views. However, it is to acknowledge that those associated with Christian Nationalism have articulated these views, and therefore Christians should proceed with the appropriate level of caution. The first ball that splashes into the water hazard is the idea of Kinism.

Like in most ideologies, not everything that is included in the umbrella of Kinism is by necessity wrong. Because that is true, the ideas in Kinism require careful definition. The Christian Reformed Church dealt with the issue of Kinism in their 2019 Synod. Overture 7 requested the Synod to declare Kinism a heresy, which it did.[1] That is a significant step since heresy should be understood as an error striking at some fundamental aspect of the Christian faith. As part of the overture, several Kinist claims are reported from a website called The Tribal Theocrat, which posted an article defining Kinism. Included in its definitions are the following:

“That the God of the Old Testament, who forbade interracial, interreligious marriages to His covenant nation, is the same as the God of the New Testament. That marriage between parties who are not naturally congenial is unequal yoking. That unequal yoking in marriage or in society at large is destructive of Christian harmony, association, and growth.”[2]

From this quote it is plain that some Kinists at least hold to racial segregation in marriage. That is taken to more strident extremes by some proponents. Cory Mahler, co-host of the Stone Choir podcast and who was excommunicated from the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod in 2023, reportedly for causing division in the church, nevertheless continues to present himself as a Christian Nationalist. His views regarding interracial marriage look beyond personal preference to obligation. “Under Christian Nationalism, interracial marriage will be made a capital offense.”[3] A post on X is hardly a complete philosophical system, and yet he has not left a lot of room for nuance. Marriage between races should be punishable by death, in his view. This post shows a dramatic difference between the idea of personal preference and societal requirement.

Returning to the more tempered article from The Tribal Theocrat, the author asserts that “Christians should work to limit human error by seeking those conditions which are inherently productive of a harmony of interests, both in marriage and in society at large. That a harmony of interests naturally exists between people who are similar.”[4] This second quotation extends the idea of racial segregation from marriage to society as a whole. In this instance Kinism would be the radical separation of races in marriage and society as an extension of the Christian laws of separation of Israel from the other nations.

The problem with any appeal to the Old Testament regarding racial distinction is that segregation was a unique command for Israel and was not applied worldwide to the other nations. The reason for this call to radical separation in Israel was not based on ethnicity but rather so that Israel would not be led astray to worship false gods. This explanation is given in Deuteronomy 7:3-4a, where it says, “You shall not intermarry with them (the seven nations of Canaan), giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods.” Notice the “for.” It relates to spiritual, not genetic purity. Later, King Solomon’s downfall is described in exactly these categories. His intermarriage with many foreign wives was the catalyst that led to his religious demise, not to a weakening of the Jewish blood-line. “For when Solomon was old his wives turned away his heart after other gods, and his heart was not wholly true to the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.”[5] The prohibition of intermarriage was not because it would dilute the ethnic makeup of the sons of Abraham. Rather, it was to protect God’s chosen people from religious corruption.

Further, even within this general prohibition given in Scripture, allowance was made to include Gentiles in the family line of Israel, provided they adopted the true religion. This idea is explicitly seen in the Lord’s commandments regarding how a Gentile can be permitted to participate in the Passover: “If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it.”[6] The criteria for inclusion in God’s people is not specific ethnicity, but rather an adoption of the sign designating a person as belonging to the Lord. Once that sign is adopted the person was counted as a native. Circumcision was the criterion for citizenship in Israel. The harsh separation described in the Tribal Theocrat is not found in Scripture.

The sojourner is not to be scorned or pushed aside. Rather Old Testament Israel was to love the sojourner as if he were an Israelite. “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.”[7] There is a principle of welcome and not exclusion even in Old Testament Israel. This principle is further worked out in relationships and family trees. Rahab the prostitute from Jericho or Ruth the Moabitess both are included in the line of Christ (see Matthew 1:5). Ittai the Gittite is included among David’s trusted military circle and supports the king. (see 2 Sam 15:21).

As a pastoral observation, it seems impossible to hold to such an essential hard division between races and preserve the unity of the church which is grounded in faith in Christ rather than any ethnic consideration. In the New Testament there are ample opportunities to promote an ethnic separation, but it always refrains from doing so. For example, 1 Corinthians 7 gives instructions for the widow, including guidance for remarriage. It says there, “A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives, but if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.”[8] The restrictions offered do not include any consideration of ethnicity, family lineage, or even cultural experience. Scripture is not framed in terms of ethnic restriction or cultural limitation in this context. Before considering Kinist views on interracial marriage, the biblical standard of 1 Corinthians 7 can be summarized as follows: the widow is free to remarry according to her wishes so long as the candidate is a believer. What follows is a comparison between that biblical standard and the ideas promoted by Kinism.

However, the Tribal Theocrat and Corey Mahler are hardly the sum total of all who would call themselves Kinists. In an unidentified pro-Kinist website, the following answer was given regarding the separation of the races: “Kinism should simply be understood as the view that, from the Christian perspective, race is real and important as a creation of God. Some Kinists believe that interracial marriage is not a wise idea, while others go further, believing it is a sin.”[9] This quote identifies a range of beliefs regarding interracial marriage within Kinism. Some would believe it is not wise, and others would identify it as a sin.

When interracial marriage is reduced to a matter of wisdom, then the question is about whether it is a good idea. It would identify difficulties that need to be navigated. Certainly stresses and difficulties are possible, and maybe even likely. But these same questions of wisdom apply to all people who  navigate  marriage. Furthermore, it is not necessarily obvious that race itself causes these stresses rather than  sinful responses to cultural differences. All marriages carry difficulties to overcome as two distinct family cultures collide. The problem is not in the differences, but rather in the sinful reactions to them. The variables that can and will introduce difficulty in marriage are manifold and to boil it down to race is overly simplistic. Simply consider the high divorce rates in our nation, whether same race or interracial couples.

If questions of interracial marriage are kept in the category of wisdom, it remains a personal preference. There must be freedom for personal preference in the area of interracial marriage because Scripture gives no command about it. Because God is Lord of the conscience, people are free to marry who they will. However, the problem with Kinism is that it often attaches an “ought,” even if only by implication. Because of that, the Kinist views have a significant impact on the unity of the body of Christ.

A person who “merely” views racial segregation as wise still is left to consider how that view will influence the broader unity of the church. I have not seen a Kinist declaration that limits salvation to certain races. Since that is so, it means that there should be broad agreement that all races are equally created in the image of God and equally valued in His sight. The gospel is true for all races, and that means He has sent His Son to die for the sins of all ethnicities of people. And if God so loved these races to include them as His adopted children, His church should not act as if it were wiser than He by dividing His family into multiple groups. That is the essential objection of Paul when he publicly confronts Peter in Antioch, as described in Galatians. Paul records,

Before certain men came from James he was eating with the Gentiles but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”[10]

On first reading it may seem that there is no relationship with ethnicity because the issue creating the dispute is circumcision. Peter, Barnabas and the other hypocrites fear the circumcision party. And that point can be granted, while the overall lesson remains: there is a unity within the Church that is greater than Jew and Gentile or circumcision and uncircumcision. And a person who believes some degree of Kinism is simply a matter of wisdom still must labor hard to prevent his view from affecting the unity of the body of Christ. I believe the categories of his opinion will make that pursuit difficult to manage consistently.

It is obvious that there is a kernel of truth in the Kinist philosophy. There is a sense in which human love is properly and naturally preferred and reserved for family. Scripture even obligates care for family above any other kind of relationship. In 1 Timothy 5:8 it says, “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” Christian resources are to be ordered in relation to family first. And what is true of resources is true of love as well. A man is to love his wife uniquely and more intensely than any other woman. A father is to love and nurture his own children before any others. A Christian is to care for the needs of those in his own church before any other. A citizen is to serve his own country before any other. These are not controversial statements. However, the priority of love in one category does not exclude expressions of love in a broader circle.

The aim in pointing out that not every assertion made in Kinism is wrong by no means minimizes the significant problems within it. In its worst form, it is a racialist view of the world which neglects the essential oneness of humanity as seen in all races being derived from one human couple, Adam and Eve. Even in its least offensive forms Kinism creates challenges the unity in the church. The kernel of truth can be seen even while the Kinism as a whole should be rejected as contrary to Scripture at worst, or harmful to church unity in its less egregious forms. However, Kinism is not the only water hazard that is played from the tees of Christian Nationalism. There are others who have articulated an even more troublesome idea. Next installment will look at race realism.

Pastor Geoff Gleason
Cliffwood Presbyterian Church

—————

[1] Reginald Smith. “Five Things to Know About Kinism.” Christian Reformed Church: The Network. September 11, 2019; updated December 12, 2023. Accessed December 29, 2025. https://network.crcna.org/topic/justice-inclusion/racial-reconciliation/five-things-know-about-kinism

[2] Mickey Henry, “What Is Kinism?” Tribal Theocrat, August 4, 2013. Accessed December 29, 2025. https://tribaltheocrat.com/2013/08/what-is-kinism/

[3] Corey J. Mahler (@CoreyJMahler), “Under Christian Nationalism, interracial marriage will be made a capital offense,” X (formerly Twitter), January 5, 2026, https://x.com/CoreyJMahler/status/2008190202246824400

[4] Mickey Henry, “What Is Kinism?” Tribal Theocrat.

[5] 1 Kings 11:4.

[6] Exodus 12:48.

[7] Leviticus 19:33-34.

[8] 1 Corinthians 7:39.

[9] Quoted in John Reasoner, “Kinism: Defining and Condemning,” Lamb’s Reign, May 21, 2022, accessed December 29, 2025, https://www.lambsreign.com/blog/kinism-defining-condemning

[10] Galatians 2:12-15.

10 Commandments, church, Culture, Government

Christian Nationalism and the Local Church | Building the Pond

Leave a comment

So far this series has covered the places where Christian Nationalism reflects something positive. I have described these as “the fairway” of political theory. It has also given examples of different areas where it is controversial, seen as the rough. However, those associated with Christian Nationalism have also created their fair share of water hazards. These are the places where ideas and the way they are used run contrary to  God’s Word and lead to serious error. These ideas are often not included as the core beliefs of Christian Nationalism, and yet certain self-proclaimed Christian Nationalists promote and promulgate very troubling views which rise to the level of grave concern and require forceful rebuke when taught by Christians.

There is a growing controversy in the conservative church, and it has to do with race. It is a strange phenomenon, though perhaps it ought not to be surprising. Only a few years ago I was writing articles against the racial reconciliation movement in the PCA.[1] That movement, intentionally or not, saddled all white people with the sins of the present and past of all people of the same skin color. That is the progressive excess in the area of racial difference. Currently, both political and Christian conservatives  are demonstrating excesses of their own in the area of race, especially in treating ethnicity and race as the primary categories for judging people. There are rising instances of Kinism, “race realism,” anti-Jewish language, antisemitism, Holocaust denial, and attempts to rehabilitate Hitler. This problem is not yet as mainstream as the racial reconciliation assertions were when at their peak, however these views are moving in that direction among many conservative-minded people.

I would be considered a Gen Xer, though I think broad generational categories actually contribute to the problem under discussion. However, I bring it up to say I grew up in the 1970s and 80s. I grew up in a world where ethnic stereotypes were much more common. Today’s forbidden ethnic slurs were used quite freely at that time. No words were universally forbidden. However, there was a recognition that using these words was not right in certain contexts, whereas today’s version of racial excess among conservatives shows little shame regarding its verbal ethnic epithets. That is not to suggest the approach in the 70s and 80s was ideal. I am simply pointing out there is a greater insensitivity in today’s climate.

Progression of Problems

So how did it happen that five years ago the church was under the unhealthy progressive racial excesses, but now the same problem is rising in the conservative camp? I am not a sociologist. I am a pastor. At best, my opinions in this area should be seen as hunches and guesses and not scientifically established and researched thoughts.

First, I think there is a reaction among ethnic white young men to being told on a regular basis that the ills of the past are their fault. They have been marginalized in terms of their voice because of the color of their skin and the fact that they are male. It seems to me they have simply adopted the label that has been given to them. If they are blamed for everything, they may as well embrace it, or so the reasoning goes.

Second, there is also a reaction to perceptions (real or imagined) that institutions which should have spoken truth, in fact did not. Reports about how the Centers for Disease Control handled COVID-19, including concerns about transparency regarding the illness and vaccines, greatly undermined trust in institutions in general. Understanding that there is disagreement about the veracity of these subjects, I simply raise them as a point of reference. Agreement with the skepticism is not required to be able to recognize that the events themselves have created doubt in large sections of people regarding whether institutions in general can be trusted.

Third, the influence of mass migration in Europe and illegal immigration in the United States has awakened a sense of protection of the natural citizens of these nations. Visiting the Netherlands this past May, it was not uncommon to hear complaints that housing was unavailable to young Dutch families due to large-scale migration. For the United States, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, claims that 6.7 million illegal immigrants have come to the US since 2021.[2] The number is open to debate, but it is not hard to see how many American citizens would see such an influx as a threat to their culture. These are the hunches of a man who speaks regularly to people who voice those kinds of complaints. However, perhaps it is better to let the motivation for the shift be explained by others. My aim here is more to examine the vehicle through which they have often come: Christian Nationalism. Again, not all proponents are lobbing balls into the water hazards. For example, Stephen Wolfe does not seem to be a racialist, a man who sees the world in racial categories, and yet there is lack of clarity on this point in his signature work on the subject.

In Stephen Wolfe’s book, The Case for Christian Nationalism, he introduces the concept of national ethnicity without clearly defining it. For example, he says, “The instinct to live within one’s ‘tribe’ or one’s own people is neither a product of the fall nor extinguished by grace; rather it is natural and good.”[3] And he presents an order of loves that, on its face, seems appropriate: “A Christian should love his children over other children, his parents over other parents, his kin over other kin, his nation over other nations.”[4] And yet, Wolfe’s lack of definition regarding some key terms leaves him open to misunderstanding.

For example, when describing ethnicity, he says, “Ethnicity, as something experienced, is familiarity with others based in common language, manners, customs, stories, taboos, rituals, calendars, social expectations, duties, loves, and religion.”[5] In this case, any mention of a racial component is left out, and yet he spends the next few pages in his book arguing for a common “volksgeist” (which, I have to admit, is a curious choice of term in light of Germany’s use of a similar term in the 1930s and 40s) that is derived from “blood relations.” Because of his lack of clarity, the door is opened to misunderstanding. And yet, lack of clarity hardly allows for a guilty verdict. However, there are others within Christian Nationalism who have clearly stated positions on Kinism, race-realism, and anti-semitism. These are most definitely water hazards and should be addressed.

Pastor Geoff Gleason
Cliffwood Presbyterian Church

—————

[1] Geoff Gleason, “An Appeal on Race in the Presbyterian Church in America,” six-part series, Theology in Shorts, 2021, first installment published August 3, 2021, https://theologyinshorts.com/part-1-an-appeal-on-race-in-the-presbyterian-church-in-america/.

[2] “The Biden Administration Has Brought in an Additional 6.7 Million Illegal Aliens,” Heritage Foundation, accessed November 21, 2025, https://www.heritage.org/border-security/report/the-biden-administration-has-brought-additional-67-million-illegal-aliens.

[3] Stephen Wolfe, The Case for Christian Nationalism, (Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 2022), 23.

[4] Stephen Wolfe, The Case for Christian Nationalism, 101.

[5] Stephen Wolfe, The Case for Christian Nationalism, 136.

10 Commandments, Christian Living, church, Culture, Government

Christian Nationalism and the Local Church | The Roughest of the Rough

Leave a comment

The previous installment dealt with the specific controversial practical applications included in Christian Nationalism. It continued to follow the basic illustration of how to interact with this political theory. Some of what it asserts is like balls that land squarely in the fairway. There is much to be learned and agreed on in what it says, mostly summarized by a robust understanding of the civil use of the moral law. But when it comes to working out those generally good ideas, the ball rolls into the rough. Blood pressure is up, swings are taken, and there may even be a club that is thrown from time to time. Never is that more obvious than when the question of a national church is raised.

Should there be a state, or established church or not? Can the civil magistrate call synods or not? Again, Presbycast had a lively and lengthy discussion on this point in their debate on Christian Nationalism.[1] This may be the thorniest of them all because it involves arguments about the original text of the Confession of 1647 compared to the American revisions adopted in 1788. Personally, I am uncomfortable with a civil magistrate who has any kind of power or jurisdiction over the Church. It comes from my presbyterian convictions that the church should be governed by a plurality of elders, not civil servants, elected or otherwise. The same principle is applied in the other direction. I would love to have a government that asks the Church for advice on its legislative plans, but I would not want the church to make policy decisions. Likewise, I am profoundly uncomfortable with a magistrate who can direct any part of the theology, ministry and government of Christ’s Church.

These five points above do not have universal agreement by any stretch of the imagination. In my own views, I am sympathetic to the Christian Nationalist call to exercise the civil use of the law in the first, third, fourth, and seventh commandments, and I am opposed to a state or national church. People may think I am “in the rough,” but I doubt there will be accusations of sin against me. They might say I lack wisdom, but there is a recognition that working out the details of a “good society” is complicated and discussion and debate must be had. When the ideal of the civil use of the moral law bumps up against the reality of fallen and sinful society, the ways to apply this use may cause head scratching and disagreement. And because there is significant disagreement on this matter in the relatively small group of Reformed Christianity, making any kind of dent in society requires even more delicacy and careful statesmanship. The United States in the 21st century is thousands of moral miles away from Calvin’s Geneva or some other utopia from the past, and it makes a quick return to the civil use of God’s law humanly speaking highly unlikely in the short term.

At this point, the question will be more about how to get the magistrate to acknowledge God’s law at all rather than enact specific legislation. One of the things that struck so many Christians in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, was that at his memorial service, many magistrates from President Trump’s cabinet made explicit reference to the gospel and mentioned sin, forgiveness in Jesus, and other such Christian ideals in their addresses. And as grateful as Christians should be when their leaders openly acknowledge the message of the gospel, there has not been a swell of legislation that returns the United States to a civil use of the moral law as far as I can tell. That leaves Christians to consider the question of Christian Nationalism more as theory. It can be helpful. The civil use of the moral law is what should be the target as far as I’m concerned. And yet it the application is not so simple.

Do Christians hope that all people would worship the one True God? I should hope so. Otherwise, what are we doing when it comes to the Great Commission. And what would happen if God would bless the evangelistic efforts of the Church? Societies would become Christian. For myself, if I would like my country to be a little Christian, so why would I not want it to be a lot Christian? But since the applications represent the rough rather than the fairway, it is not surprising when there is some disagreement about the magistrate’s role in getting there. Christians should be able to have strong biblical convictions here, while at the same time not demonizing brothers whose views differ from their own. And yet there is also a proper place for warning, where proponents of Christian Nationalism loose the plot. Several instances will be highlighted and examined in the next few articles.

Pastor Geoff Gleason
Cliffwood Presbyterian Church

—————

[1] Presbycast, “Continuing the Debate: Church & State,” YouTube video, accessed December 8, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnOV-QdRoCM, starting at 13:00.

10 Commandments, Christian Living, Government, sabbath

Christian Nationalism and the Local Church | Still Hacking in the Rough

3 Comments

Though Christian Nationalism does have plenty of material that lands on the green, there are also concepts in which its ideas land in the rough. These are areas where, even among those who have broad agreement with this political theory, there will be disagreement. Last installment the ball had rolled into the rough. General disagreement about the basic approach of the relationship of church and state leads to disputes over the particulars of the responsibility of the civil magistrate. Below are some examples of instances where the Reformed idea that the moral law should be used to curtail sin causes proponents of that doctrine to bump heads. Included is my assessment of these ideas which will further serve to demonstrate what is being suggested: that there is disagreement about how to implement the theory proposed by Christian Nationalism. I expect that some who read my assessment will disagree, perhaps even strongly. On to the specific examples.

First, the law requires that man have no other gods before the Lord.[1] That, in itself, is not complicated. The God of Scripture is the only God and He will allow none to rob Him of His glory. But to translate that specific command to the context of national laws is difficult or at least controversial. There is the ideal of where the Christian might desires things to be, but there is also the current cultural climate. That is not to say that pragmatism is the name of the game. However, in the United States laws would have to be changed before anything that looks remotely like that could even be proposed as legislation. Though my personal opinion is that the Christian religion should be preferred in the ideal, it is clear that Christian brothers and sisters who oppose that view have many valid concerns and criticism that flow either from a different approach to ordering civil life, or from reservations of what to do in a society that is not at all monolithic and has allowed people from many different religions to make their homes in this land. Especially the question about implementation in the current cultural context is important. It is one thing to assert that Christianity should be preferred. It is another to have a clear vision of how to get from religious pluralism to that place. For that reasons, the ideal of Christian preference should be held fairly lightly, because it is so far from being a reality.

Second, the third commandment prevents blasphemy against God. A Reformed understanding of the civil use of the law would at the very least leave room for blasphemy laws. Not every Reformed thinker agrees on this point. For example, in the March 21, 2024 Presbycast debate on Christian Nationalism, Dr. D. G. Hart stated, “I think Stephen Wolff’s book could be used to support suppression of free speech, which could penalize a lot of bad stuff that I don’t like. But it could also penalize a lot of Christian stuff, which is happening.”[2] Dr. Hart makes the argument that the magistrate preferring the Christian religion by curbing things like blasphemy and false religion would curb free speech and thereby attack the first amendment in the United States. In my opinion, that argument is poor.

In dealing with the ideals of a society, the Christian’s appeal is not to the Constitution of the United States, but rather the word of God. However, beyond that, the principle of free speech is not predicated on everyone being allowed to say all things in all places. For example, there is an existing practice of limiting profanity and blasphemy based on age. There is a rating system in place for entertainment that classifies media according to content. Things like profanity, blasphemy, sexual content and other factors all influence the final rating. Why? Because it is recognized that exposing young people to prophane language and other things is not good, and therefore it is regulated. Blasphemy laws simply argue that it is never appropriate for anyone to hear the name of the Lord blasphemed.

Granted, the current cultural climate of the West would make enforcement of blasphemy laws all but impossible, but the civil use of the moral makes it clear that it is not wrong to have such laws. Personally I would favor them. Since man’s chief end is “to glorify God and enjoy Him forever,”[3] and since heaven will only have people who do that perfectly, it seems right to orient people toward that heavenly reality in a society as well.

Third, and closely related, is what should be done with the seventh commandment in society. This issue is essentially the other side of the same coin. The question is how much the civil magistrate should interfere in the area of human sexuality. Sin always brings about pain and destruction, and that is perhaps especially true of sexual sin. That is evident in the fallout of pornography, fornication, divorce, single-parent families, homosexuality, and a host of other sins against the seventh commandment. I believe the civil magistrate should prevent such harm to come to the society it has been appointed to govern. Should pornography be illegal? It seems a “no-brainer” to me. Absolutely. It is simply digital prostitution. Is it right to limit such behavior by law? In my opinion it certainly is.

How many men in the Internet age have external controls so that they not have access to pornographic material that would harm or even destroy their marriage? Services like Qustodio or Covenant Eyes are in place to act as guiderails and to restrain sin in men. If the magistrate is to restrain evil, the civil use of the law would suggest that legislation prohibiting the evil of pornography would set the guardrails for the whole nation. Making pornography illegal would provide a default national internet filtering service and that would be good because it is a destructive sin.

Growing up before the age of the Internet, I simply did not have access to pornography in the same way. To obtain pornography required going to a store and asking a man behind the counter for material he and I both knew was sinful or at least not appropriate. That is why it was behind the counter. The embarrassment of such a transaction kept me from accessing such material. That is not to say there were no sexual sins during the 80s and 90s. The heart was not made clean by these restrictions, but they did restrain access to sin in society and thereby largely removed a destructive temptation. Pornography is a scourge. Not only are those in that industry exposed to tremendous damage, but marriages fail and are torn apart not simply by this sin but also by the others which are spawned from it. It would be right for the civil magistrate to restrain evil via legislation. It is harder to see how Christians might oppose this notion, and yet there are those who do so.

Fourth, there is the question of blue laws. What is the magistrate to do with the biblical command to “Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy?”[4] Outside the Reformed Presbyterian tradition there is a fair amount of skepticism about the calls from Christian Nationalists to enforce the fourth commandment. For example, Wolfe had laid out a case for moral orientation in a Christian society, which includes an understanding of the centrality of Sabbath rest. “A Christian society that is for itself will distrust atheists, decry blasphemy, correct any dishonoring of Christ, orient life around the Sabbath, frown on and suppress moral deviancy, and repudiate neo-Anabaptist attempts to subvert a durable Christian social order.”[5] Wolfe clearly prioritizes the magistrate’s enforcement of the protection of the Sabbath as a day of rest. And this assertion is not well received by all Christians. For example, Pastor Tom Hicks reacts strongly against Wolfe’s suggestion.

Pastor Hicks recently gave an address on Christian Nationalism at Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary’s 2025 Covenant Conference. In this talk he is incredulous at even the possibility of such a series of laws, though it seems that Pastor Hicks draws some conclusions about Wolfe’s views that are not explicitly found in his own words. First he takes issue with the idea of Sabbath enforcement: “He also writes this, this is I think significant, we’ll see later, the civil government may engage in quote, the suppression of public blasphemy, heresy, and impious profanation. Then he says obliging Sabbath observance. Now he knows that the Sabbath and the scriptures is not just like the blue laws of the South, which says businesses have to close on Sunday.”[6] For Hicks, Wolfe is asserting something more than simply laws which oblige rest on the Lord’s Day. For him the mere mention of the word Sabbath expands the category from civil laws to corporate church worship. “Sabbath observance is to remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. That means to worship corporately. And he’s saying to oblige Sabbath observance.”[7] This characterization becomes a major obstacle for Hicks.

From dealing only with Wolfe, Hicks expands his critique to the original 1647 Westminster Confession of Faith and its position which is much more comfortable with involvement from the civil magistrate in the dealings of the Church. And as he draws his conclusions, one of his concerns is that Sabbath laws, which Hicks believes by necessity are related to Christian worship, will weaken the Church. He states, “It (Sabbath Law) undermines religious liberty in society. And so it threatens the purity of the church. Think about this, when the civil government makes church attendance legally or financially advantageous, hypocrites will flock to the church, of course.”[8] Leaving aside whether Hicks has accurately presented Wolfe’s position, from his reaction is it clear that Hicks, pastor of First Baptist Church in Clinton, Louisiana, a Reformed Baptist congregation, is far from comfortable with this part of Christian Nationalism.

Hicks, fairly, links Wolfe’s views more closely to the 1647 version of the Confession. However, even after the American revisions in 1788, the Confession still teaches about the universal aspect of the Moral Law. Therefore the obligation to Sabbath keeping in society is not changed between versions. In reformed theology, God’s law requires the Sabbath day to be remembered. The Jewish Sabbath, celebrated on today’s Saturday, has been replaced with the Lord’s Day, celebrated on today’s Sunday. In the 17th century, the Westminster Divines explained that shift as follows:

In his Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, He hath particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto Him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which, in Scripture, is called the Lord’s Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath.[9]

Notice the emphasis on “all men in all ages” which assumes validity of the civil use of the law in these instances. Christian Nationalism rightly challenges the Christian to think about what that means when it comes to the civil use of the law with regard to the fourth commandment.

A clear case could be made for the negative impact of the neglect of the Lord’s Day to the health of the United States. And that, again, would be in line with what the Westminster Standards teach. When asked why the Lord calls His people to remember the Sabbath, the answer comes back: “The word Remember is set in the beginning of the fourth commandment … (because) Satan with his instruments much labor to blot out the glory, and even the memory of it, to bring in all irreligion and impiety.”[10] The Larger Catechism is saying that neglecting the Sabbath paves the way for the neglect of worship and holiness as a whole. Both of those neglects are bad for any people. And yet even within my own denomination, the PCA, there are many ministers who disagree with this statement in our Standards and ask to be allowed to hold a stated difference, or exception, to this section of the Confession. Not only is there not agreement about what should be done in the world regarding the Sabbath, there is not even agreement about what should be done with it among God’s people.

There is one more common flashpoint of conflict in the philosophy of Christian Nationalism: the state church. This topic deserves its own installment and that will come next.

Pastor Geoff Gleason
Cliffwood Presbyterian Church

—————

[1] Exodus 20:3.

[2] Presbycast, “Continuing the Debate: Church & State,” YouTube video, accessed December 8, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnOV-QdRoCM,starting at 1:07:56.

[3] Westminster Shorter Catechism, #1.

[4] Exodus 20:8.

[5] Stephen Wolfe, The Case for Christian Nationalism, (Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 2022), 240-241.

[6] Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary, “Christian Nationalism | Tom Hicks #CovCon’25,” featuring Rev. Tom Hicks, YouTube video, accessed December 8, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6hT6hIrPl8. Starting at 9:30.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid., at the 13:00 mark.

[9] Westminster Confession of Faith, 21.7.

[10] Westminster Larger Catechism, #121.

10 Commandments, Christian Living, Culture, Government

Christian Nationalism and the Local Church | The Rough

2 Comments

This series of articles serves as an introduction to the broad topic of Christian Nationalism. It is progressing along the lines of a golf analogy, dividing this political theory into the fairway where there are good ideas, the rough in which there is disagreement, and the water hazards which are wrong and even sinful. The previous installment, looked at the claims of Christian Nationalism that land in the fairway. Christian Nationalism was shown to be operating in the Reformed theological stream, at least broadly speaking. In so far as Christian Nationalism argues for the use of God’s moral law in society as a restraint of sin, there is broad agreement. However, there is more to this movement than its broadest definition.

This installment finds the ball has rolled into the rough. And herein is discovered one of the major problems with this movement. Its broadest principle may be agreeable, but the way it works out the details can in many instances be problematic. As soon as its proponents get past the broadest statement, claims of how this theory should work itself out in society immediately creates disputes. Simply asserting the civil use of the moral law does not solve all the practical difficulties of Christians living in society. Neither does it provide the necessary wisdom to Christians in positions of authority in society in terms of specifically how they should carry out their responsibility and guard against sinful excesses. Christian Nationalism is more than simply the civil use of the moral law. And because that is true, there are difficult questions that are issues of wisdom rather than plain statements of right or wrong.

First, it should be clear that Christian Nationalism is a political theory that lives in the ideal. It makes suggestions regarding the implementation that touch both society and the church. However, the United States or any Western nation is a long way from actually being able to implement even the broadest and blandest assertions of Christian Nationalism in a significant way due to rampant secularism. Society is at odds with the basic suggestions of Christian Nationalism. Beyond the resistance in society, it should also be clear that, even among Christians who hold to the civil use of the moral law, there are areas of significant disagreement over how best to proceed.

The broad statements, or the essential theory as to whether there is a place for God’s law in society is not the main concern. For example, the Statement on Christian Nationalism says, “We affirm that implementing Christian Nationalism in each nation will include the punishment of each nation’s great evils and promote each nation’s thriving.”[1] That broad assertion should not be controversial for any Christian. As stated above, for those in the Reformed tradition, the civil use of the law is the fairway and this statement is fairly “vanilla.” The trouble arises when trying to work out the applications and priorities. Once the details are discussed, the ball lands in the proverbial rough. There are more swings taken and the blood pressure is definitely rising. So though punishing national evils and promoting thriving sounds great, the specifics of what that looks like creates disagreement.

For example, beyond the general statement about the moral law, the Statement on Christian Nationalism also says the following:

We affirm that the specific, short-term priorities of Christian Nationalism in the context of the United States are to call our nation, in her laws, formally to acknowledge the Lordship of Christ, to declare solemn days of humility and repentance, to abolish abortion, to abolish pornography, to define marriage as the covenant union of a biological male and a biological female, to de-weaponize the federal and state bureaucracies which target Christians for censorship and persecution, to secure our borders and defend against foreign invaders, to recapture our national sovereignty from godless, global entities who present a grave threat to civilization like the United Nations, the World Health Organization, the World Economic Forum, etc., and to exercise restraint in international military intervention and adventurism in overseas “democracy building.”[2]

There are many things in this list of national sins that should not be controversial for Christians. Obvious targets for reform in this list include abortion, pornography, marriage between one man and one woman, opposition to transgenderism, etc. However, there are several places where the specific statement made is vague enough that there would be disagreement in the specifics.

Here Christian Nationalism distinguishes itself from the “vanilla” view of the civil use of the moral law. The statement above includes both issues of clear morality and questions that are much more obscure. However, the Christian Nationalist often does not make a distinction between these different categories. What does it mean to “de-weaponize the federal and state bureaucracies?” How do we “recapture our national sovereignty?” How should the United States “exercise restraint in international military intervention?” These things are lumped in with the murder of the unborn and perversion of human sexuality as if they exist on the same plane. However, there will be a variety opinions on those questions that fall in the realm of “wisdom.”

For example, the Statement refers to the United Nations, Word Health Organization, and World Economic Forum quite negatively. However, good Christians can disagree on the usefulness of these entities and the extent to which they should be used. That is because the Bible does not make a direct statement about those questions. Wisdom must be utilized to consider how those kinds of issues can be worked out in relation to the moral law. Christian men are free to disagree with each other on many of these points.

As an example, critics of Christian Nationalism ask questions around the perceived difficulty of enforcing the first table of the law. By way of explanation, the first table of the law deals with man’s relationship to God as described in commandments one through four. How can a government give leadership or make laws that require a right relationship to the God of Scripture? Some Christians argue for a religiously “neutral” magistrate from the perspective that if a magistrate implements Christian ideals at the exclusion of other religions, the magistrate will be able to do that in reverse as well. For example, in a Presbycast episode, Dr. Daryl Hart observed the following: “Free speech is under attack a lot of the places. And I think Stephen Wolff’s book could be used to support suppression of free speech, which could penalize a lot of bad stuff that I don’t like. But it could also penalize a lot of Christian stuff, which is happening.”[3] His co-panelist, Brad Isbel, articulated the same idea when he said, “Maybe this is what people want, but I don’t see how this is not contrary to the American settlement, to what we believe about freedom of religion and the protections of the First Amendment, which if we dispose of could be used against us.”[4] These men are arguing religious preference is dangerous based on the potential backfiring that could happen if other religions obtained power.

Dr. Hart went on to argue for religious neutrality in the civil magistrate by saying, “That’s part of what the American founding was trying to do, was to try to be a nation that wasn’t based on a particular tribal group, whether religious, ethnic, or some other arrangement.”[5] These quotes are given to show the tremendous variety of opinion that exists within Reformed Christian circles on these . There is plenty of room to haggle over the outworking of details in national and foreign policy. In my opinion, the Christian gives away too much when he argues that all religions should be treated the same in society as a practical anticipation of future reprisals. It is difficult to read Romans 13:1-7 and come away with such a strategy.

According to this text, the civil magistrate does not exist to satisfy his own will, nor is he ultimately tasked with securing the consent of the governed. His primary duty is to serve God. In Romans 13:4–6, Paul makes this explicit. In verse 4 the civil magistrate is called a “servant of God” who “carries out God’s wrath,” and in verse 6 civil magistrates are described again as “ministers of God.” Scripture, then, defines both the authority and the responsibility of the magistrate in relation to God before anyone else. He is first a servant—indeed, a minister—of the Lord, not of himself and not even of the people. The first question any magistrate ought to ask is whether he is serving his Master well. And who is that Master? The answer to that question is found in whom he serves, and Romans 13 assumes he serves God.

The identity of his master has an impact on his actions. Romans 13:3–4 describes the magistrate as carrying out “God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” Since God’s wrath is provoked by sin and since sin “is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God,”[6] neutrality seems an impossible position for the civil government. The civil magistrate is right to punish things like resisting arrest or contempt of court (violations of the Fifth Commandment), assault or murder (Sixth Commandment), theft or fraud (Eighth Commandment), and perjury or obstruction of justice (Ninth Commandment). These actions are not merely socially inconvenient. They are sins against the One whom the magistrate serves. At best, what we see in our legal system today are remnants of a principle that has largely been abandoned—that the civil magistrate is, first and foremost, a servant of God.

Again, this discussion is dealing in the realm of the ideal. It is a question of what should be done, not an analysis of what is being done. In the ideal, it is proper for Christians to desire their government to operate with the Moral Law as its guide. Kevin DeYoung well summarizes what seems to be the default attitude of Reformed Christians when it comes to the nature of the government. “I hope Christianity continues to have a prominent place in the public square, even a privileged place (as it has for most of the last 250 years).”[7] There reason it should be the default position is that Christians profess to believe that this Law is the God-breathed, reflection of the holiness of God, written by His own finger on tablets of stone. But even in granting that assumption and assuming the validity of the moral law, there will be controversy and disagreement as to how the implementation of that Law is worked out and applied. Christian Nationalism errs in being to narrow and forceful in its assertions of things that fall properly within the area of Christian liberty and wisdom. The next installment will look at some specific examples where dispute arises. It will include my own assessment of each of those issues, which will serve as a case in point as readers react to it: some will agree and others not so much.

[1] Silberman, James, and Dusty Deevers, The Statement on Christian Nationalism and the Gospel, Article X: On Nationalism and Policy Priorities, accessed January 20, 2026, https://www.statementonchristiannationalism.com..

[2] Ibid.

[3] Presbycast, “Continuing the Debate: Church & State,” YouTube video, accessed December 8, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnOV-QdRoCM, starting at 1:07:54.

[4] Ibid., 1:10:22.

[5] Ibid., 1:17:49.

[6] Westminster Shorter Catechism, #14.

[7] Kevin DeYoung, “6 Questions for Christian Nationalists,” Clearly Reformed, accessed December 8, 2025, https://clearlyreformed.org/6-questions-for-christian-nationalists/.

Theology and practice in short manageable bites.