As this series wraps up, there is one more thing to consider. This section is assuming that the controversial tenets of Kinism and race-realism are obviously against important doctrines around the total depravity and sanctification of man. However, there is one aspect here that is almost surreal. And it has to do with the holocaust denial and Hitler rehabilitation that some within Christian Nationalism espouse.
Questioning a historical report generally is not raised as being an attack on the gospel, unless it has something to do with questioning the truthfulness of the Bible’s accounts of Christ’s life, death, resurrection, ascension, and so on. That is proper. Different views of history are not essential to faith and salvation. However, when the Church begins to court and prominently argue for controversial views which are not remotely connected to faith and godliness it is giving a world that is already looking for it, ample ammunition to discredit its witness.
The Christian Church is to present the gospel of salvation to the world. This gospel is offensive enough on its own. It is the stumbling stone upon which many people will be shattered.[1] The Church’s calling is to carry out this ministry that is central to the mission of the Church and it must be protected. When Jesus gives the Great Commission He does not charge the church to proclaim fringe and easily disprovable historical positions that are not related to Him. He says, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”[2] The Church’s calling is not to proclaim a variant interpretation of World War II history. And when it chooses to do so it gives the enemies of Christ great ammunition to minimize the Church as a fringe group of conspirators. Even if a Christian were to be foolishly convinced of such a historical reading the question should still be asked whether it is helpful in any way to raise it in the Church. It is a view that is known to elicit strong feelings and seems to be an invitation to strife.
The problem addressed in this section, then, is not questioning a historical report perse. Christians can study and investigate with the ninth commandment in view. But there is a broader question regarding the impact of such a topic on the Church and whether it will serve to edify. So, pastorally, I want to suggest to the Church that all members of it should always be asking themselves the question of whether I can or should do or say something. Though the Christian may be free to raise such a thing without endangering his own salvation, the question to ask is whether it will serve to build up God’s people, or create a distraction. “‘All things are lawful,’ but not all things are helpful. ‘All things are lawful,’ but not all things build up.”[3] Paul’s conclusion on the matter is that all things which would cause offense should be avoided. “Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.”[4] Paul’s objective is the ministry of the gospel, not a controversial historical opinion.
One additional consideration. The racial excesses of the right in Kinism and race realism, and the flourishes of claims of “international Jewry,” Holocaust denial and minimization, and attempts to rehabilitate Adolf Hitler further introduce relational difficulties between members in the Church. In other words, these expressions harm the unity of the church. The topics raised in this paper would make less of saints who are considered precious by Christ. The way of salvation is the same for all people. It is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and His finished work. This truth must be believed by Caucasion, African, Asian, Hispanic and any other kind of person. And it means that God loved and cherished them enough to send His Son to die on the cross for them. And if that is so, how could we as Christians risk any behavior or expression that might imply or say that somehow they are less precious because of a genetic reality.
For that reason the statement made by the PCA in support of the RPCNA and ARP is so appropriate.
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.
This statement does not deny differences between people. It is arguing against claims of superiority based on immutable human characteristics. That includes race. Christians should love their neighbor as themselves, and should not adopt the prideful ways of those who argue for racial superiority of any kind.
Concluding Thoughts
It deserves to be repeated that many men who defend and espouse some form of Christian Nationalism do not hold to the more controversial “water hazards” outlined above. I am grateful for men who, with zeal and conviction, look for correction and refinement in how the Civil Magistrate should carry out its ministry appointed by God.[5] It is unclear to me how they will move from theory to practice, but the exercise of thinking about it is in itself helpful and commendable. For that reason, I want to stress that I think there is much good that can come from the Christian Nationalist movement.
The excesses within Christian Nationalism do not negate all the good that is laid forth by its proponents, neither do all its proponents articulate their views in such a way that they by necessity are at odds with the biblical record and Christian doctrine. But there is a need to be cautious and to read carefully. An idea that corrects past problems is prone to over reaction. If the theological balls are on the fairway or even in the rough, let’s play on and sharpen each other. These are the issues regarding the Moral Law as a restraint of evil in society, including the usefulness of blue laws, a national church, or other such ideas which can create significant disagreement. But in the case of the water hazards discernment is needed because certain people who claim the moniker of Christian Nationalist are hitting buckets of balls into them. These are the aspects that some proponents of Christian Nationalism have articulated, such as Kinism that goes beyond a personal preference, race realism that argues for racial superiority and hard categories based on racial characteristics, up to a soft, or even blatant, anti-semitism and issues surrounding the Holocaust.
So what is the Church’s correction to Christian Nationalism? This question does not have a simple answer because the variety of views held by proponents. Some proponents could quite easily be seen as articulating one of various legitimate interpretations of Romans 13 and the role of the civil magistrate as a minister of God. It is entirely possible that your pastor or favorite theologians may not agree with that view. However, correction and dismissal is not what is needed. These discussions require charity, listening, refining, and reason. However, there are others who articulate a more strident version of this political theory.
When sin enters the picture, there is no longer a consideration of opinion. Sin is sin, whether it is simply in thought, expressed in words, or carried out in action. There is no need to shrink back from identifying those who fall into this category. It is not brothers and sisters who may differ on the suitability of the United States sending financial aid to today’s Israel. It is not those who believe that Hamas ought to bear the blame for all of the calamity in Gaza. But it does come to those who lack charity toward history and how it affects people, who express their views with profanity and crassness, and who present some group of people, whether ethnic or some other classification based on an immutable, genetic trait, as inherently less worthy or more sinful.
Pastor Geoff Gleason
Cliffwood Presbyterian Church
—————
[1] 1 Peter 2:7-8.
[2] Matthew 28:19-20.
[3] 1 Corinthians 10:23.
[4] 1 Corinthians 10:32-33.
[5] Romans 13:4b.