Category Archives: Culture

10 Commandments, Christian Living, church, Culture, Government

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

1 Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pastor Geoff Gleason
Cliffwood Presbyterian Church

—————

[1] Ephesians 2:14-17.

[2] Galatians 3:27-28.

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

[4] Genesis 1:31.

[5] Geneses 3:8.

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

[7] Exodus 12:48.

[8] Deuteronomy 23:3-4.

[9] Revelation 7:9-10.

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

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

Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pastor Geoff Gleason
Cliffwood Presbyterian Church

—————

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

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

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

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

[5] 1 Kings 11:4.

[6] Exodus 12:48.

[7] Leviticus 19:33-34.

[8] 1 Corinthians 7:39.

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

[10] Galatians 2:12-15.

10 Commandments, church, Culture, Government

Christian Nationalism and the Local Church | Building the Pond

Leave a comment

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

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

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

Progression of Problems

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pastor Geoff Gleason
Cliffwood Presbyterian Church

—————

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

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

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

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

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

10 Commandments, Christian Living, church, Culture, Government

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

Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

Pastor Geoff Gleason
Cliffwood Presbyterian Church

—————

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

10 Commandments, Christian Living, Culture, Government

Christian Nationalism and the Local Church | The Rough

2 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[2] Ibid.

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

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

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

[6] Westminster Shorter Catechism, #14.

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

10 Commandments, Christian Living, Culture, Government

Christian Nationalism and the Local Church | The Fairway

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

1 Comment

At the 52nd 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:

  1. Those who are unaware of Christian Nationalism. The broadest definition possible will be given to provide a basic understanding of the movement;
  2. 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;
  3. 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;
  4. 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.

Children, Christian Living, Culture

Sending Out Your Young Men

Leave a comment

“I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, dwells in you as well. For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands,  for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control.“
(2 Timothy 1:5-7)

As much as a father like to fix his son’s behavior, the most important thing he can leave him with is the very thing that gives meaning and structure to life. And that thing is not found in good behavior. To only instill good behavior in our sons is to give them a fish, but not a fishing pole. There is tremendous benefit for life in learning social graces, courtesies and so on. In a Christian home, specific commandments and their applications as derived from God’s word will help sons know how holiness is rightly expressed. And a good father will teach these things. Yet, a father cannot be satisfied sending his son out of his home, knowing that he is a “fine young man.” He must show to his son an abiding focal point that will motivate and direct a young man to consider why he does what he does no matter what circumstances he may face in life. And this focal point is only found in the gospel.

In using the word “gospel” what is in view is the good news of salvation for sinners through the blood of Christ received by faith. And though it may seem like it is abstract and intangible, in reality it is quite different. A right understanding of the gospel will touch every part of life. It will effect what is done in marriage, as a father, in prayer and study of God’s word, what church is attended and served, how money is managed, sexual faithfulness, and even how a man prepares for death. If those issues are not pressing into a young man’s “present”, he will face them one day or another. This gospel must be known, understood, and received by faith. So what is this gospel, specifically?

The gospel cannot be reduced to a slick phrase, a slogan, or a bumper sticker. These kinds of catchy sayings are all around us, thanks in no small part to the advertising industry. Tag lines are remembered, jingles can be sung long after they have been heard, and yet life cannot be ordered around them. There is, in a sense, a simple gospel message, but the reality and the full weight of the gospel is understood when the context within which this good news is given is felt. The message itself and the context of it are given in the Bible, God’s story of the way He saves sinful man by the blood of His Son.

The summary statement talks of forgiveness by the gracious application of the blood of Christ by the Holy Spirit to the heart of sinful men through faith in His  perfect obedience and sacrifice. But around that simple statement is the larger context of that message of hope. That context includes God as creator making all things visible and invisible. God who rules and reigns over this creation, who sets the rules, and determines consequences and punishments. It includes man as sinner, eternally indebted to the creator for his many sins against Him. It includes Christ as redeemer, shedding His precious blood to satisfy the debt owed by men. These things must be known, and when they are they serve as a foundation for a grateful life.

Christian Living, church, Culture

Walking In Gratitude

Leave a comment

As a nation, we celebrated Thanksgiving this past November 25. For many, the significance of this day has turned from an opportunity to praise God to a generic sentimentality about gratitude for family and comfort. However beneficial it is for a nation to have a day of giving thanks, it is meaningless void of an acknowledgement of God. As His people, we should remember to give Him thanks every day. His word calls us to this daily celebration in these ways: 

His covenant promises. The foundation for Christian thankfulness runs throughout the Bible. The record of God’s covenant relationship with His people reminds us daily that it is God’s grace only that allows us to be in relationship with Him.

His law. The commandments of God point us to Him in two ways. First, in showing that we are incapable of keeping them He gives us daily motivation to find salvation in Christ. Second, once living in the reality of salvation, we have daily reasons for praising Him because we have been delivered from sin’s dominion.

His works. God’s record of His providential work in this world plainly shows us His power, patience, and strength. Where we fail and fall, He is powerful to pick us up and to carry us to eventual glory.

I love Thanksgiving. I love the chance to acknowledge that the blessings we enjoy come to us from God’s hand. And yet I wish my heart was more grateful on a day-to-day basis for the eternal blessings God provides.

10 Commandments, Christian Living, Culture, Government

Part 2 » The Christian’s Relationship with the Government: The Source of Authority

Leave a comment

“My travail is that both princes and subjects obey God. Think not, Madam, that wrong is done you, when you are willed to be subject to God.”[1]

There is much to consider when it comes to the power and authority of the government. Especially in western nations, there is consternation among Christians over recent mandates and requirements coming from the civil magistrate. As a result, there has been disagreement in churches and denominations about the extent of authority the magistrate may exercise. And then there is John Knox. Last article he is quoted as advocating for disobedience, even violent opposition to a civil magistrate who exceeds his bounds. In the quote above Knox is speaking to his queen, Mary, Queen of Scots. This time he asserts the limits of her power: she also is to be subject to God. Before there is too much excitement (either positive or negative) about these quotes, there are a series of questions that have to be answered. Before the Christian can affirm or deny Knox’s claims, there must be a clear and biblical understanding of the role and function of government. These questions and their answers make up the substance of this series of articles. The first question to be considered is, “What is the source of the civil government’s power?”

Chapter 23 of the Westminster Confession of Faith deals with government and is entitled “Of the Civil Magistrate”. The biblical texts regarding the establishment of the governing authorities cited in this confession are 1 Peter 2:13-14 and Romans 13:1-4. Reserving consideration only for the latter, in the opening verse of Romans 13 Christians are told “there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” Christians must allow the significance of those words to sink in. The Bible teaches here that good and bad princes are placed in their positions by God. There is no authority except from God, and those in authority are placed there by Him. Humanly speaking, rulers may assume power in a variety of ways. Monarchies and emperors do so by birth,  nations may conquer through war, deceitful men may claim power through intrigue and betrayal, and in democracies governments are chosen through the voting process. But behind all those secondary human causes sits God’s singular and divine providence. God decrees, and then carries it out by governing all His creatures and all their actions (see Westminster Shorter Catechism #11).

God’s will is done in the world, also in times when evil seems to have the upper hand. That was the case in Joseph’s life and he recognized it as such. In Gen 50:20 he tells his brothers: “You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good.” In that moment, Joseph recognizes that things appear differently to man than God. Man only has part of the picture and it can seem like evil will prevail. But God, seeing the entirety of His plan, accomplishes his will through secondary causes. When it comes to the governance of the societies of this world, He uses the civil magistrate. God may work through godly princes, but his plan is also accomplished when the wicked rule. Job understood that all things come from God’s hand: “Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?” (Cf. Job 2:10). When Satan entered Judas Iscariot’s heart and convinced him to betray Christ, that evil plan resulted in the final victory over sin and death. Those moments are not accidents which God did not foresee. So God gives authority to all rulers, whether they are good or evil. Recognizing that truth will eliminate the vast majority of calls for civil disobedience.

However, when the Bible says all governing authorities are instituted and appointed by God (Rom. 13:1-2), it is not saying that all authorities behave in a godly manner. It is simply recognizing government receives its status through God’s providence. Their position is God-ordained, regardless of the personal approval of its citizens when it comes to their political decisions or personality when lawfully made. To say all authority is instituted by God is not saying anything about the right direction or proper boundaries to the government’s power. What is the civil magistrate to do? For what purpose to it wield its authority? That is a question for the next article.

[1] John Knox, The History of the Reformation in Scotland (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1982), 279.