Category Archives: Christian Living

10 Commandments, Christian Living, church, Race

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

July 9, 2026 Geoff Gleason Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pastor Geoff Gleason
Cliffwood Presbyterian Church

—————

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[11] Romans 3:23.

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

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

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, 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 3 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bible, Christian Living, worship

The Use of Imprecatory Psalms

June 16, 2025 Geoff Gleason Leave a comment

When people try to provide some order in the psalms, one of the strategies they use is to identify different types of psalms, like psalms of praise or lament. When organizing them in this way, one of the categories that presents itself in the psalter is psalms of imprecation, or imprecatory psalms. In these psalms the psalmist calls down curses on his enemies. One such example is Psalm 69. The psalm opens with David asking the Lord to save him from the reproach, shame, and dishonor that fill his life. Those kinds of things might be included in a psalm of lament. And yet later David calls down curses on his enemies. He wants them to become entrapped in their own poisonous plans (v. 22), have their eyes blinded (v. 23), be overtaken by God’s wrath (v. 24), have their camps become desolate (v. 25), experience punishment without mercy (v. 27), and be blotted out of the book of the living (v. 28). Or perhaps more notoriously, Psalm 137:9 exclaims praise for those who destroy Edom: “Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!” These are difficult words to process for New Testament believers and sometimes cause Christians to wonder about the place of imprecation for New Testament believers.

The Tension with Imprecatory Psalms

That struggle is not without warrant since the tone of the New Testaments seems so different. Romans 12:19 says, “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’” Or Jesus says in Matthew 5:43-44: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” Further, there are calls to feed your enemy when he is hungry and give him water when he is thirsty (Rom. 12:20). Further Scriptures implies that God is providing for the daily needs of your enemy (Matt. 5:45). Those apparent discrepancies lead some to conclude that Jesus and Paul are at odds with the imprecatory psalms, or even with calls of cursing of God’s enemies generally speaking.

However, to put Jesus and the psalms at odds with each other is without warrant. First, there are also calls of cursing in the New Testament. Clearly the imprecatory psalms are a fairly small category of psalms. Less than 10% of the psalms contain even an imprecatory section. In other words, it is not the main theme of the Old Testament. By way of comparison, a quick glance at the New Testament shows there are also imprecations in the writings of the apostles. For example, in Galatians 1:8 Paul calls curses down on those who would pervert the gospel, when he says, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.” Or in 1 Corinthians 16:22 Paul calls curses down on those who have no love for the Lord when he says, “If anyone has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed. Our Lord come!” Additional examples are found in Galatians 5:12, 2 Timothy 4:14, and Revelation 6:10. It is a mistake to think calling down curses on God’s enemies is something that is uniquely Old Testament, and that the New Testament is filled with patience, grace, and turning the other cheek. The validity of biblical imprecation has to be understood by considering the themes of judgment and mercy together. Depending on how someone is wired they tend to dismiss one or the other, but that cannot be done from a biblical perspective.

Someone with a propensity toward justice tends to minimize statements on God’s mercy and the patience the believer is to exercise in the face of the cruelty of enemies. Someone with a propensity toward mercy will likely begin with a negative view of biblical imprecations. But in understanding the imprecations, justice and mercy must exist together without contradiction. Both exist in Scripture. They simply must be applied properly.

The justice of God, which is expressed in its final form as the ultimate curse of an eternity in hell, will certainly be applied to His enemies. However, today’s enemy may be tomorrow’s friend and vice-versa. Paul begins as a persecutor of the church, but ends an apostle. Judas Iscariot begins in Jesus’ inner circle of disciples, but becomes a betrayer of the Lord. If the church had called on Paul to be cursed while he was a persecutor, it would have been asking God to curse His apostle. And if the church had asked for Judas to be eternally blessed, they would have been asking for that blessing for the “son of destruction” (John 17:12).

Clearly, there is a use for imprecation for saints of any age, but the application of when it should be used requires discernment. Christians should be able to see that imprecation should not be used by man based on what appears to be so in his limited understanding. Instead, imprecation is applied based on what is finally true, which is only known by the omniscient God. Man’s assessment of a person’s final spiritual condition is always incomplete. Think of the worst person imaginable. Are you sure God will not pardon this guilty sinner by the sacrifice of Christ? Are you certain he will suffer eternally in hell? If not, praying a curse against him as an individual might oppose God’s will. He may be chosen by God to be an object of His mercy.

No child of God will be cursed because Christ has become a curse for him. Likewise, no enemy of God will be blessed because Christ is not his mediator. So when should imprecations be used?

Applications for Imprecatory Psalms & Prayers

The prayers of imprecation are not appropriate for individuals. Christ will certainly conquer all His enemies. However, since man does not know these enemies by name, imprecations should not be offered against an individual. It is right to pray that God would thwart a specific person’s actions, or to pray for mercy and a changed heart for those who oppose God’s church in the present. It is good to pray that God would work all his will in each person’s life, either unto salvation or condemnation. But we must be very careful not to pray a curse on a specific individual.

Prayers of imprecations are appropriate when aimed at the Devil, his demons, the wicked, the enemies of the Lord. Whoever God’s enemies are, Christians can be certain they will be defeated. Christ conquers, defeats, and judges his foes. Therefore, it is right to pray a curse on God’s enemies. That kind of prayer is simply to agree with God. The Bible states clearly that the devil and the other fallen angels are God’s enemies, and without hope of change. The wicked will be judged. The enemies of the Lord will be defeated. The Christian can pray strongly against these categories, even if, for the most part, the names of individuals are not known. God will curse and judge all His enemies as a group, and He knows perfectly well who they are individually. Therefore the Christian can leave the question of who God’s enemies are to His perfect, omniscient mind. However, since there are enemies of the Lord, curses call be called down on them without indicting any single individuals.

Agreeing with God’s Word

The curses of the Lord are real. For those outside of Christ, their eyes will be darkened with death one day. Then the indignation of God will be poured out on them, and his burning anger will overtake them. Their legacy will be nothing. There will only be the desolation and emptiness of the haunting echoes of hell. Punishment will be added to punishment for them with no hope of acquittal. They will be blotted out from the book of the living, never to be enrolled among the righteous. That is not simple an attempt to frighten. That is the words of the Bible.

The curses of the Bible allow the Christian to agree with God. It allows them to say, in agreement with the message of Scripture, that salvation is found in no other place but the person and work of Christ. There is not any other name under heaven by which men can be saved. And those who are not saved are cursed. That is God’s plan, and it is good. And those who pray and sing imprecations in that general sense are praying for and singing of things agreeable to the will of God.

Pastor Geoff Gleason
Cliffwood Presbyterian Church

theologyinshorts

Category Archives: Christian Living

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

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

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

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

Christian Nationalism and the Local Church | The Rough

Christian Nationalism and the Local Church | The Fairway

Christian Nationalism and the Local Church | An Introduction

Christian Nationalism

Stewardship: Time and Recreation

Work, Work, Work

Fun, Fun, Fun

Balance

Concern for the Contemporary Church

Stating the Problem

The Way Back

The Use of Imprecatory Psalms

The Tension with Imprecatory Psalms

Applications for Imprecatory Psalms & Prayers

Agreeing with God’s Word

Theology and practice in short manageable bites.