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/.
