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

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

June 17, 2026 Geoff Gleason 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

May 27, 2026 Geoff Gleason 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

May 6, 2026 Geoff Gleason 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 21^st 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

April 15, 2026 Geoff Gleason 1 Comment

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 17^th 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

March 25, 2026 Geoff Gleason 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/.

10 Commandments, Christian Living, Culture, Government

Christian Nationalism and the Local Church | The Fairway

March 4, 2026 Geoff Gleason Leave a comment

In the first installment of this series, a broad definition of Christian Nationalism was suggested. By looking at definitions provided by The Statement on Christian Nationalism and the Gospel and Stephen Wolfe, it was suggested that, broadly speaking, Christian Nationalism is the political philosophy in which the government is accountable to God, and more than that, should order itself in such a way that Christianity is encouraged and supported in the laws and structures of the nation. This installment further explores whether any part of Christian Nationalism is compatible within the Reformed theological tradition.

There are people whose gut reaction is that there is nothing good to be found in anything that combines the word “Christian” and “nation.” Such a response is to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. Although Christian Nationalism has a variety of advocates, and some (as we shall see) are problematic and even rotten, not all of what it suggests is bad. Perhaps the most uncontroversial example for Reformed Christians is the use of the moral law in society. When Christian Nationalism asserts that the civil magistrate should order itself for the glory of God, it is simply saying what previous generations of Reformed theologians and pastors have said. This position should even be seen as a healthy correction to the excesses and failures of today’s western societies. To suggest the moral law has a use for nations should be like hitting an opening drive that lands pleasantly on the fairway of political theory.

The Reformed view of the moral law is first that it is summarized in the Ten Commandments[1], and second, that it has application for everyone, whether believing or unbelieving. Westminster Larger Catechism #95 explains that “The moral law is of use to all men, to inform them of the holy nature and will of God, and of their duty, binding them to walk accordingly.” And so there is no person that can escape consideration regarding this moral law. As it informs man of God’s holiness and the creature’s duty, it does so through three main “uses.” Reformed thinkers arrange them in a different order, but they all agree on the same three basic principles. First, the pedagogical use shows the law-breaker his need for Christ. Second, the civil use restrains sin in families and society. Third, the normative use directs the Christian in his thankfulness to God in his life of holiness. Christian Nationalism, in a practical and helpful way explores ways for the civil use of the moral law to be applied in nations. This idea is not new.

John Calvin clearly understands that there is a civil use of God’s law in society. In his Institutes of the Christian Religion he says: “The second office of the Law is, by means of its fearful denunciations and the consequent dread of punishment, to curb those who, unless forced, have no regard for rectitude and justice.”[2] This description clarifies that the civil use is separate from the condition of the heart. It recognizes some will have to be forced to obey the law, and the heart will not be touched. Some may be tempted to decry compulsion in the use of the moral law in a society of unregenerate people, and yet Calvin saw it as entirely justified: “Nevertheless, this forced and extorted righteousness is necessary for the good of society, its peace being secured by a provision but for which all things would be thrown into tumult and confusion.”[3] For Calvin the external restraint of sin is good for society, and that should not be controversial for Christians.

Stephen Wolfe is a prominent voice in the Christian Nationalist movement. He echoes what Calvin says although he emphasizes the positive outworking of this use: “We can say, therefore, that while cultural Christianity itself, as a social power, cannot bring about spiritual good, it directs people to activities wherein they can procure the things of eternal life, both inside and outside the instituted church.”[4] He does not claim the law saves in any way, but is an agent restraining evil and in that way directs people to spiritual good. The state cannot force people to adopt this good as their own understanding of morality, but it can prevent the evil alternative from being done. The government has an obligation to orient its citizens understanding of morality in relation to God’s law. The Statement on Christian Nationalism and the Gospel says, “We affirm that God’s moral law is enduring and binding on all people throughout all time, including civil authorities and nations, and that it is summarily comprehended in the Ten Commandments.”[5] This statement is in line with the quotes from Calvin mentioned above. It views the civil use of the moral law quite robustly and does not shy away from enforced external righteousness in society.

If Christian Nationalism simply is the idea that all societies must be governed by laws, and that the moral law is the perfect expression of righteousness and therefore it is good for the civil magistrate, as a minister of God, to apply the moral law in its civil use, I doubt many Reformed Christians would object. Kevin DeYoung, by no means a fringe or radical voice in the Reformed camp, says it another way: “Celebrating our Christian heritage, promoting Christian ideas in the public square, and having elected officials who are committed to historic Christianity and eager to see Christian churches protected and flourish—if that’s Christian Nationalism, most evangelicals in this country would be for it. And so would I.”[6] So the difficulty is not in all the propositions that it makes, or even in the desire to have God’s word shape society. Disagreement arises in the details of implementing that theological understanding.

So for the Reformed Christian, there should be broad agreement about the basic foundation of Christian Nationalism. God’s law is applicable for all people, and there is a place for it in the restraint of sin in society. And yet this agreement is at the broadest possible level. For the Christian who thinks the second, or civil use of the law solves all the disputes, this next installment should be helpful. It will examine the challenge of finding agreement on how to proceed in implementing such a political theory. Simple assent about the rule of God over all the world does not mean that, once the particulars are considered, unity abounds. So a broad agreement that the law of God has application, does not mean that governance according to those commandments is embraced by all Christian people.

Pastor Geoff Gleason
Cliffwood Presbyterian Church

—————

[1] Westminster Larger Catechism, #98.

[2] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008), 2.7.10., 224.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Stephen Wolfe, The Case for Christian Nationalism, (Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 2022), 213.

[5] Silberman, James, and Dusty Deevers, The Statement on Christian Nationalism and the Gospel, Article III: The Standard of Justice, accessed January 20, 2026, https://www.statementonchristiannationalism.com.

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

10 Commandments, Christian Living, Culture, Government

Christian Nationalism and the Local Church | An Introduction

February 11, 2026 Geoff Gleason 1 Comment

At the 52^nd General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), this denomination, showing solidarity with the Associated Reformed Presbyterians (ARP) and the Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America (RPCNA), adopted a simple statement. The Assembly declared:

That the 52nd General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America does hereby join with the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (221st General Synod) and with the Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America (193rd Synod) in condemning without distinction any theological or political teaching which posits a superiority of race or ethnic identity born of immutable human characteristics, and does call to repentance any who would promote or associate themselves with such teaching, either by commission or omission.[1]

This statement was part of a larger concern that was brought before the Assembly. The Assembly also voted 1008-333 to approve the establishment of a study committee to investigate “the relationship between Christian Nationalism, Ethno-Nationalism, and related teachings. Further, the committee shall advise on whether these teachings and formulations are in conformity with the system of doctrine taught in the Westminster Standards or where they may diverge from the system of doctrine on Christian Nationalism.”[2] Those requesting such action pled for the General Assembly to act because of actions and attitudes with which they were dealing in their church, arising from “Christian Nationalism.”

Before thinking through what Christian Nationalism is, some may be wondering why it is necessary to write about it. I have been aware of its existence since around 2023. At the time it simply seemed like a niche argument among political theory and theology nerds. I was sure it would disappear soon. However, that has not happened. The debate around Christian Nationalism is hardly mainstream, but it has the potential of becoming so. Pastorally, then, it is my aim to provide a very basic introduction to the subject considering four basic groups coming to Christian Nationalism:

Those who are unaware of Christian Nationalism. The broadest definition possible will be given to provide a basic understanding of the movement;
Those who are immediately suspicious of any combination of “Christian” and “nation.” The Reformed theological tradition of the use of God’s moral law will be summarized, showing there is agreement within the Reformed theological tradition at least as to some of what is articulated in Christian Nationalism;
Those who are overly confident about what Christian Nationalism can do. The need for a healthy dose of realism will be laid out as seen in the variety of opinions about how to establish Christian Nationalism in society;
Those who go beyond Christian Nationalism to Ethno-Nationalism. There will be a rebuke and critique of the unsavory and sinful elements included in Christian Nationalism. As a caveat, Christian Nationalism is not club with a gatekeeper who decides who is in and who is out. Not all who claim to be Christian Nationalists hold to these excessive views. And yet those who do should be addressed.

This post is the first in a longer series which recognizes all these different “camps” in the Church, and is meant to give an introductory survey of this movement. For some it will introduce the subject as a whole, for others it will urge caution about being overly dismissive or optimistic, and for some it will serve as a rebuke for bring division and error into the Church. So with all of that said, what is Christian Nationalism? Below is a very general overview.

Christian Nationalism

One of the challenges in addressing Christian Nationalism is that there is a breadth of opinions held by proponents of this position. Not all men who claim the name “Christian Nationalist” hold the same opinions. Of course there are a variety of definitions that are used to define this political theory. It is most helpful to try to clarify terms using the words of men who themselves hold the position, rather than the various straw men that have been suggestion by their opponents. James Silverman and Dusty Deevers, in the Statement on Christian Nationalism and the Gospel define it as follows:

CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM is a set of governing principles rooted in Scripture’s teaching that Christ rules as supreme Lord and King of all creation, who has ordained civil magistrates with delegated authority to be under Him, over the people, to order their ordained jurisdiction by punishing evil and promoting good for His own glory and the common good of the nation.[3]

Contained in this definition is a recognition that the civil magistrate is subordinate to Christ and instituted for His glory. Another definition comes from Stephen Wolfe who says,

Christian nationalism is a totality of national action, consisting of civil laws and social customs, conducted by a Christian nation as a Christian nation, in order to procure for itself both earthly and heavenly good in Christ.[4]

This definition focuses more on the action of the magistrate as aimed at directing the nation toward Christ, and deals less with the initial source of its authority. Christian Nationalism, in my mind, is a very basic outlook on the way civil government and Christianity should interact. Using these two definitions, and articulating the very basic foundation of this philosophy in a way its proponents would recognize, its approach to this relationship would be that the government is accountable to God, and more than that, should order itself in such a way that Christianity is encouraged and supported in the laws and structures of the nation. Such a philosophy is actually fairly tame and easily traced as a common view in Reformed theology. A simple reading chapter 23, “Of the Civil Magistrate” of the original Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 would make that abundantly clear. And yet this movement has generated a tremendous amount of controversy.

Some of that controversy is about the political views themselves. Even at the confessional level, the American Presbyterians significantly revised the original Westminster Confession of Faith in 1788 precisely on the issue of the function of the civil magistrate, curbing its involvement in the life of the church. And yet, even in the revisions the assumptions that nations should be Christian remains and that Christian denominations should be preserved in part by the magistrate. “As nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger.”[5] This quote is simply given to show that the definitions above are not that far away from even the revised statements of the Westminster Confession. And yet, Christian Nationalism is seen by many as controversial.

Controversy is, in itself, not an indicator of error. It is my view that Christian Nationalism as a broad philosophy is not problematic. The controversy arises not from its essential statements, but from how its proponents suggest this basic philosophy should work itself out in real time. Because of the disputes around these things it is a proper pastoral question to ask: How should Christians interact with this controversial movement? Should it be rejected outright? Are there parts of Christian Nationalism that can properly inform Christians in their approach to life in the society? Are there limits to what should be embraced in terms of its ideas? These are questions that represent the various ways people react to this new phenomenon. To address these different views, perhaps a golf-course analogy works. There are aspects of Christian Nationalism that are like shots hit on the fairway which is where the ball should be, others which are like those hit in the rough where strokes and blood pressure increase, and still others that act splash into a water hazard where the ball is lost entirely.

In the series of articles that follows each category is to be examined so the Christian who first hears about this movement will have a foundation to begin interacting with it. In a world of polarized opinions, where all is either good or bad, these articles will hopefully present things to learn, things that are seen as controversial, things that are clearly wrong and suggest some ways forward in navigating this controversy.

Pastor Geoff Gleason
Cliffwood Presbyterian Church

—————

[1] Presbyterian Church in America, 52nd General Assembly Commissioner Handbook, Onsite Addition Partial Report of the Overtures Committee, p. 224-225.

[2] Onsite Addition Partial Report of the Overtures Committee, p. 224.

[3] James Silberman and Dusty Deevers (with contributing editors William Wolfe, Joel Webbon, Jeff Wright, and Cory Anderson), The Statement on Christian Nationalism & the Gospel, accessed January 20, 2026, https://www.statementonchristiannationalism.com

[4] Stephen Wolfe, The Case for Christian Nationalism, (Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 2022), 9.

[5] Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 23.3.

Christian Living, Sanctification

Stewardship: Time and Recreation

September 22, 2025 Geoff Gleason 1 Comment

How should I use my time? That is an important questions. Time is a limited commodity in each person’s life. The Lord has only given so much of it to each individual, and determined its exact number. Psalm 139:16 teaches, “Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.” So God the Creator gives to man the gift of time. And therefore man the creature is not to use it for himself. He is a steward of them. He manages what he has on behalf of the One who gave it. Psalm 90:12 puts it this way: “So teach us to number our days that we may get a heart of wisdom.” That represents a (very) basic, biblical understanding of time and man’s relationship with it. But that framework often gets tested in real-life, and man tends to fall in one of two ditches.

Work, Work, Work

One danger is to use time as if it is only given for production. And productivity is definitely a biblical virtue. For example, the apostle Paul worked extremely hard. He describes what he was willing to do for the sake of the church in Thessalonica. “For you remember, brothers, our labor and toil: we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, while we proclaimed to you the gospel of God.” (1 Thes. 2:9). Biographies of the giants of history often reveal men with tremendous work ethics. Also in Christian history, men like John Wesley and George Whitfield accomplished so much because they worked incredibly hard. In the workplace, Yahoo Finance reported that during the launch of Tesla’s Model 3, Elon Musk was working 120 hours per week. And though it may be admirable on one level, this kind of dedication to production is neither healthy nor commendable for the vast majority of people.

Sabbath. The fact that the Lord has woven into His creation the idea of Sabbath rest renders the conclusion that we must always be productive unlikely. In giving the fourth commandment, the Lord said that man is to labor six days and rest one (Exodus 20:9-10). Weekly worship and rest is woven into creation as an essential use of man’s time.
Festival. Thinking specifically of the prolonged feasts of the Old Testament, week-long festivals to the Lord were an extended break from productive labor (Leviticus 23:33). Considering even the Sabbath years and the Year of Jubilee, an extensive period of rest from productive labor was expected.
Relationship. Some of the relational expectations placed on Christians in the Bible means they have to cease from productive labor. For example, the husband is to cherish his wife (Ephesians 5:29), fathers are to bring up their children (Ephesians 6:4), Christians are called to serve each other in the Church (1 Peter 4:10).

Productive labor is to be exercised with proper proportion. Life is more same work, work, work. A blind drive to work indicates that one part of what God calls Christians to do has been taken to excess, or maybe even become an idol.

Fun, Fun, Fun

The opposite danger is a constant desire for recreation. There is a softness that comes when labor is neglected and replaced with idleness. Overindulgence of recreation and excessive use of digital escape (social media, cellphone games, etc.) is one expression of what happens when man turns in on pleasing self. Demandsage reports: “The average US screen time has reached 7 hours and 3 minutes.” That is on average. That is each day. Extrapolate that over a year and the average person spends 2,573 hours per year on their phone. That is about about enough time for one man to build a 1,500 square foot house from scratch. To be fair, not all the time spent on a phone is necessarily poorly used. But even if half of it is, that leaves 1,286 hours unaccounted for per year. That is the equivalent of 161 8-hour work days. Compare that to the 52-104 hours Christians spend on corporate worship in a year (6½-13 work days), it’s pretty clear there is an imbalance. Instead of using time in such a neglectful way, the Bible points out more beneficial considerations.

Productive work. Paul calls the Thessalonians to deal strongly with a person who is constantly idle. In 2 Thessalonians 3:11-12 he gives this command: “For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.” So, though productive labor is not everything for the Christian, it is something.
Stewardship. In a 52 week year, there are 260 work days. Taken the average, that means Americans are on their screen for 62% of one year’s work days. How much work could be done for the church if people gave the equivalent of 160 work days to church ministry and evangelism? There is a limited amount of time in life and to spend such an exorbitant amount of it being entertained is not good stewardship. The glory of God demands more from His people. The apostle Paul often speaks of the intensity of his efforts to use the time he had been given well (1 Cor. 15:10; Col. 1:29; 1 Thes. 2:9). The Christian church today would do well to imitate that zeal.
Spiritual growth. When time is allocated in one area, it eliminates the possibility of its use in another. Spiritual growth and discipline require the commitment of time. Scripture reading and prayer require time. Working out God’s salvation in fear and trembling requires study, practice, and attention. To neglect allocating time to spiritual improvement means the church will be less theologically robust and spiritually mature.

Balance

The answer to how I should use my time is to consider it from the perspective of time being God-given. God does give time for man to enjoy the good things of this life. The Christian need not be averse to recreations and enjoyment. Life is not all work. Neither should he leave off the hard labor that comes and pursue only the life of ease. Man’s chief end is the glorify God, and that is relevant for considering the stewardship of time as well.

Belief about God, Gospel, Love for God, theology

The Doctrine of Adoption

July 15, 2025 Geoff Gleason 1 Comment

“¹⁴ For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. ¹⁵ For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” ¹⁶The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, ¹⁷ and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.” (Romans 8:14-17)

The doctrine of adoption is often not given the attention it deserves. Prominence is given to other doctrines of grace, such as man’s justification or sanctification. And yet understanding the Christian’s adoption in Christ is crucial to a joyful and thankful life. I want to explore this doctrine, and use the text above as the starting point. Before getting into those specific verses it is imperative to come to terms with Romans more broadly speaking.

Paul has given his thesis in Romans 1:16, when he says, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” Paul spends the next several chapters examining this gospel message more broadly that the Church often does. In chapters 1-3 he gives a jarring description of the sinfulness of man and his guilt before God his Creator. In chapters 4-5 he counteracts that dismal message with the reminder of God’s promise that salvation comes not by man’s works, but through faith in Christ alone. In chapters 6-7 he emphasizes the call to Christian holiness, but with a realistic acknowledgement of the struggle that comes along with it. Thus, the movement in the big picture of Romans is from man’s sin to God’s mercy to man’s holiness. That same progression is seen on a smaller scale in chapter 8.

In verse 1 Paul begins by announcing that there is “no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” Condemnation is to be expected for sinful man, but those in Christ are spared. In verses 12-13 Paul follows that up by describing the changed life in Christ as putting “to death the deeds of the body.” So there is a contrast. On the one hand, the Christian is saved in Christ, but he is called to a changed life. The Christian cannot simply throw up his hands with a wry smile saying, “I cannot obey, but Christ has done so perfectly for me. I have His righteousness and therefore I am forgiven. There is nothing more to it.”

In Romans, the message is urgent. The first three chapters have pulled the fire alarm with its description of man’s sin. And despite the calls to holiness in light of Christ’s saving work, Paul’s cry in Romans 7:24 resonates with the Christian. “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” It is the grace of God that reconciles to man, but grace is not simply a phrase to be spoken. It is a deep, multifaceted gift from God.

Communion of Grace

Westminster Larger Catechism #69 introduces the notion of the “communion in grace” that believers have with the Lord which includes justification, adoption, and sanctification. These come to the Christian because they are united to the Lord through faith. And these facets of the Christian’s communion in grace with God must be held in balance to ensure the Christian experiences richness in their relationship with the Lord.

First, consider God’s grace in justification. Romans has described this doctrine in some detail in chaptes 4-5. Justification deals with man’s salvation in the legal sense. The guilty sinner stands before the judgment seat of Almighty God. That is the legal setting. Justification is the act in which the Righteous Judge pardons the sinner and declares him righteous. What a glorious truth. However, a person who lives before the Lord with an eye on justification only will relate to God strictly on legal terms, which is neither personal nor warm.

Second, consider God’s grace in sanctification. In chapters 6-7 of Romans the Christian has been called to turn away from sin unto obedience. That process is induced by grace but from man’s perspective certainly involves a sense of effort. That is true not only in Romans, but in other parts of the Bible as well. For example, in Hebrews 12:14 God exhorts His people to “Strive …for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.” In Philippians 2:12 they are called to “work out,” their own salvation in fear and trembling. 2 Peter 1:5 adds “make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue.” Finally Colossians 3:5 tells them to “Put to death therefore what is earthly in you.” God in His grace equips the Christian for that spiritual battle, which is a wonderful truth. But if a Christian only relates to God in terms of his sanctification he will look at his life as a series of tasks and improvements to be done.

Justification held out of balance can be legal and impersonal. Sanctification held out of balance tends to make a man task oriented. But what if the Christian relates to God with these things put together? It may not improve things. The end result may be relating to God as a legally minded, impersonal taskmaster with a list of things to do. Adoption is the key missing ingredient.

Father, not Judge

Consider God’s grace in adoption. Adoption saves the Christian from relating to God in exclusively legal and/or performative terms. In Romans 8:14 it says, “All who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.” That marks a significant relational change for a man who before was guilty of sin. A person should relate to God as Judge only if he is outside of Christ. For those who have received their justification by faith, God is no longer judge, but Father.

Not everyone has the same experience in family, but people recognize what a family should be. In healthy homes children and parents do not relate to each other by citing contracts and ratifications of agreements. Instead, they relate to each other in love. Parents set boundaries for their children out of love, and children in turn obey their parents out of love. It would be absurd to see a family where the father is treated as a judge.

Of course, judges often do have families. And in their professional capacity it is normal for them to wear a long robe and to be addressed as “your honor.” However, if a judge were to behave that way at home, it should raise some eyebrows. Adoption is that Christian doctrine that shows the Christian’s relationship to God is altered from a legal one to a familial one.

Since adoption rightly frames the Christian’s relationship to God, Christians should know that they are adopted. Romans 8:16 explains that the Spirit’s testimony gives certainty in this regard: “The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God.” That verse may seem a little subjective, but 1 John provides clarity. The testimony of the Spirit comes in the following ways:

First, the response to the gospel. 1 John 2:3 says, “And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep His commandments.” That means that a person who knows the gospel, will respond with a pursuit of holiness. Even if struggles remain, to pursue the commandments is a testimony of the Spirit about adoption. And God directs His children and calls them to walk this way and not that one.

Second, the confession of the gospel. 1 John 4:2 says, “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God.” The testimony of the Spirit in not just one of understanding but also a desire to profess Christ.

Third, the understanding of the gospel. 1 John 5:20a says, “And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we may know him who is true…” And more than that, from John’s gospel it is clear that an understanding of the truth comes from God the Holy Spirit. John 16:13a says, “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth.” Anyone who understands the mysteries of the gospel and has a knowledge of Christ is displaying the work of the Holy Spirit.

In moments of doubt a Christian may say, “I don’t obey as I should.” And that most certainly will be true of anyone at times. But Romans 8:16 says, “we are children of God.” (emphasis mine). Yes, the Heavenly Father corrects sin. But He does so because He desires that His children would turn away from sin, and love the good instead. That truth should not lead to a spirit of slavery of fear, but cause the children of God to flee to Him for safety.

The Inheritance of Christian Sons

Christians are adopted sons and daughters, which means they have access to all the rights and privileges of a child of God. In fact, Romans 8:17 notes three things the Christian shares with Christ in adoption: First, a shared inheritance (they are “fellow-heirs”); 2. Second, a shared suffering (they will “suffer with Him”); and, 3. Finally, a shared glory (they are “glorified with Him”). Believers share all of these with Christ.

To share in Christ’s suffering means forsaking self and following the Lord. At a minimum, when the world says “yes”, but God’s word says “no” the Christian follows. That is the extent of suffering asked of the North American Christian. However, there are also brothers and sisters in other places who suffer far more acutely for belonging to Christ. They face persecutions of various degrees ranging from estrangement from family (which may happen in the United States too), to forfeiture of property or freedom, or even loss of life. To be glorified with Him is to be perfected in heaven with the Lord as is described in Revelation 21. But most significantly sharing in Christ’s inheritance is to receive eternal life.

Implications

The doctrine of adoption is a great benefit to Christians. Sins are forgiven, and holiness is pursued, but in the context of a loving Heavenly Father. Therefore think of your communion of grace with God in the following ways:

Be assured of God’s grace in salvation. Romans gives a glorious picture of how God reconciles His people to Himself. Imagine the sinner standing in the defendant’s box. He is dead in sin and trespass. All the evidence is piled up and his face betrays his guilt. And instead of a guilty verdict God’s executes His just sentence on Christ instead. All the wrath of God over the sins of His people is poured out on Jesus on the cross, and so He welcomes His sons and daughters.
Live as grateful children of God. For a young child, their parents are their whole world. When they learn a new skill they look for affirmation from their parents, exclaiming “Look mom, look dad!” Why do they want that attention? Because, more than anything, they want their parents’ approval. They do not need to motivate themselves to seek or express affection. They do not have an internal dialogue: “Oh man. I’ve got to make another card for mom today. Better get the production rolling.” They want to make cards for their parents. And that should be the heart of the Christian too when it comes to His heavenly Father. That is the lesson learned from John 14:15 which says, “If you love me you will keep my commandments.”
Remember, God is your Father. In my time as father I have received many cards and pictures from my children. The artwork is questionably, the grammar is almost non-existent, and the spelling is definitely not good. Sometimes it was not even clear to me what I was looking at. But never did it cross my mind to send the artwork back for revisions and edits. And God’s love is far more tender than any love a human father may have. God does not desire to judge you, Christian. He loves you with a perfect love.

Pastor Geoff Gleason
Cliffwood Presbyterian Church

Christian Living, church

Concern for the Contemporary Church

June 30, 2025 Ron Gleason 2 Comments

I am a “retired” pastor. I placed the word “retired” in quotation marks (twice now) because I am still trying to discern what that word means. Mr. Webster supplies some helpful hints, but they tend not to correspond to my current life. Did I mention that I recently turned eighty? I did. One of my former catechism students from Canada wrote me happy birthday wishes and asked what it felt like to be eighty. I responded that it felt a lot like seventy only older. I’m not certain that helped her.

One thing I have noticed is that with all the emphasis placed on youth in America in our time, once you turn seventy or so, people think of you as too old for anything, including preaching and teaching. It’s the age number that is hard for people to overcome.

Stating the Problem

I must admit that I do get a lot more reading done these days, which brings me to the reason I am writing this blog post. A youngish Christian recently wrote about some of the serious problems in the contemporary church setting, among which was a deplorable lack of ethical discernment and reflection. I agree wholeheartedly. The young man formulated his concern in the form of a question: “How do most Americans get training in ethical reflection?” By extension, we might ask, “Where do serious-minded Christians go to learn how to make God-pleasing ethical decisions?” Certainly, home is an option for ethical instruction, but the local congregation ought to be as well.

Granted, there are—thankfully—still Christian congregations where the congregants are challenged by excellent expository preaching and Sunday School classes that are challenging and informative. In the twenty-first century, however, many of those local churches are assigned to the “endangered species” list. With the advent of the homeschooling phenomenon, some parents have taken the time to ensure that their children receive a thorough grounding in mature Christian decision-making, along with catechetical instruction that provides a solid outline of the essential, fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. In addition, there are still Christian high schools that offer courses—as in “more than one”—in ethics, but they, too, are becoming increasingly rare. Not to teach our youth Christian ethics and worldview is spiritually to shortchange them. Exposure to the twenty-first-century world is a dangerous and hostile undertaking.

It would be a sheer novelty to locate a state college or university that provided any formal ethical instruction, but assuredly all of the secular institutions of “higher learning” teach/indoctrinate their students in the secular version of ethics. On second thought, it would be a near miracle to find such courses in our locales. Approximately fifty or so years ago, H.L. Mencken famously quipped that “there is no idea so stupid that you cannot find a professor who will believe it.” While that is meant to be mildly humorous, there is more than a modicum of truth enveloped in it.

When I speak or write about the contemporary Church of Christ, I am generally referring to what we witness results of the mega-church, emergent/emerging church, Social Justice Warrior, and woke congregations from the early 1970s until the present and their various combinations and permutations. In my forty-five years of pastoral ministry in three different countries (The Netherlands, Canada, and the United States) I have surmised that we are facing at least three generations of professing Christians that have not been fed the spiritual food they and we all so desperately need.

What I have observed is that a growing number of professing Christians, young, older, and very much older, have not received much or any substantive training in how to think about ethics and ethical issues. Every two years, Ligonier Ministries conducts a theological survey focused on the beliefs of those who are avowed “evangelicals” and who attend worship on a regular basis. Yearly, the results of that survey increase in their disheartening results. Understanding of rudimentary Christian truth/doctrine deteriorates yearly, followed closely by deviations from what ought to be easily discernible ethical reflection. It is noteworthy that views on abortion on demand, homosexuality, transgenderism, economics, politics, and worldview—just to mention a few—trend in a disturbing direction. The obvious danger for the Church is that if contemporary, popular churches continue to ignore serious ethical reflection, congregants will continue to be molded and shaped by a culture that is openly hostile to Christianity.

Returning to the notion of schools for a moment, especially Christian high schools, there needs to be a greater emphasis on Bible, the formation of a biblical life and worldview, languages, the fine arts, and ethical decision-making using the Ten Commandments as Christian Ethics 101, whether it is a strictly homeschool situation, a homeschool co-op, or a regional Christian high school. In addition, there should be a far greater emphasis on the confessions, creeds, and catechisms of the Christian faith in all of those situations.

No, the confessions, creeds, and catechisms are not infallible. Infallibility and inerrancy are reserved only for Scripture. Nevertheless, I contend that the historic confessions, creeds, and catechisms are far superior to anything you and I could cobble together. How can the modern Church, then, at least take some serious steps at what I am describing?

The Way Back

There are many roads that lead us back in the right direction. Allow me to outline just a few. First, we must conclude that bigger isn’t always better. That is, a mega-church with many varied “programs” is not always the best church for modern Christians. In fact, it can be argued that a smaller, more family-oriented congregation could surpass our needs and expectations. A faithful pastor, who week-in and week-out enters the pulpit and unashamedly, boldly, yet simply and understandably, proclaims God’s truth from the scriptures is to be preferred.

Second, you might want to find a congregation that takes Sunday School seriously. One ethicist suggested that Sunday School ought to be similar to military boot camp. Of course, it might not be a drawing card to tell everyone that your Sunday School is like boot camp, but the idea is appealing for a number of reasons. For those of us who have experienced boot camp, we know that it was there that we received the fundamentals of what would keep us alive on the battlefield—we did not receive everything mind you, but certainly the basics that would serve us well and help us survive. Moreover, after boot camp there was a period called A.I.T. or Advanced Individual Training where we were the recipients of training that would refine the basics that we learned in boot camp. For the children, their parents ought to be looking for a congregation that teaches the youth from one of the Church’s catechisms. From my tradition, I am thinking of the Westminster Shorter Catechism and the Heidelberg Catechism. Both are excellent.

Third, and this follows closely on the two previous points, you should be looking for a congregation that through the preaching, teaching, fellowship, and prayers, aims at your spiritual development. What I am describing I usually call a congregation that acts and lives like a “covenant family.” What is that? Generally, it is a body of believers who genuinely love and care for one another. They mourn with those who mourn and rejoice with those who rejoice. They enjoy being around one another and if there is a physical need in the congregation they pitch in to help with meals, transportation, or whatever is needed. They eagerly look forward to worship and learning what God would have them do and how he would have them live—albeit imperfectly. They comprehend the simul in Martin Luther’s famous dictum Simul iustis et peccator. Speaking on justification by faith, Luther described the sinner saved by grace as, at one and the same time (simul), justified and a sinner. We have not arrived in our walk of faith, but we are on the journey of the Christian life. God has placed us on the road that will eventually take us “home.” That is where we want to be, but in the meantime, we seek a meaningful and purposeful life here on earth, fearing God and keeping his commandments.

Dr. Ron Gleason
Bluffton, SC

Progression of Problems

Christian Nationalism

Work, Work, Work

Fun, Fun, Fun

Balance

Communion of Grace

Father, not Judge

The Inheritance of Christian Sons

Implications

Stating the Problem

The Way Back

Theology and practice in short manageable bites.