Category Archives: Government

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, Government, sabbath

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

1 Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hicks, fairly, links Wolfe’s views more closely to the 1647 version of the Confession. However, even after the American revisions in 1788, the Confession still teaches about the universal aspect of the Moral Law. Therefore the obligation to Sabbath keeping in society is not changed between versions. In reformed theology, God’s law requires the Sabbath day to be remembered. The Jewish Sabbath, celebrated on today’s Saturday, has been replaced with the Lord’s Day, celebrated on today’s Sunday. In the 17th 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

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.

10 Commandments, Christian Living, COVID, Government

Part 7 » The Christian’s Relationship to the Civil Government: Conclusion

Leave a comment

“God has promoted kings, that they may promote justice. As they have a sword in their hand, to signify their power; so they have a scepter, an emblem of justice.” (Thomas Watson, The Ten Commandments, p. 123)

Last installment summarized the reformed, confessional stances on obedience to the civil magistrate. And I want to focus in, by way of conclusion, on a concept that all the confessions had, although they describe it in various ways.

The Heidelberg Catechism calls Christian to honor the “good instruction” of the magistrate. The Second Helvetic confession demands obedience to “just and fair commands”. The Westminster Larger Catechism says the magistrate sins when it uses its authority in an “unlawful” and “unjust” way. The point of all of them is that there are limits to the authority of the magistrate. Therefore, it is not necessary to obey the magistrate when he strays outside of his lane.

This statement is not controversial when it comes to others in authority. If I seek, because I am a father to my children, think I can command all children it should come as no surprise that those outside my family will not listen to me in the same way. If an elder from a Presbyterian Church in America congregation asserts himself at an Orthodox Presbyterian Church’s meeting, he will be ruled out of order. If the president of the United States issues orders for the Prime Minister of England, he will be ignored. And so it is for citizens. When a government takes authority that does not belong to it, Christians are right to ignore it. The civil magistrate is not god and does not have limitless powers.

There have been some examples of a public reprimand for government officials taking more authority than they have. President Biden’s administration ordered that all businesses with more than 100 employees require COVID vaccination or regular testing. The Supreme Court ruled that “Although Congress has indisputably given OSHA the power to regulate occupational dangers, it has not given that agency the power to regulate public health more broadly.”[1] In other words, the government took for itself power that had not been delegated to them. It is neither a “good instruction,” “just and fair” command, or lawful. A company would have been wrong to submit to such an order from the civil magistrate. Herein is the summary of this series.

The Christian is not called to a blind submission to all decrees from the civil magistrate. There are obvious exceptions. When the government commands a sin, the Christian is not to obey. But in the same way, the Christian is not required to yield obedience to unlawful commands. That is not an endorsement of violence and uprisings. It is simply saying that in the face of rapidly expanding unlawful powers being seized by the government, the Christian may quietly refuse an unlawful command and must be willing to suffer the consequences if they do.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/13/supreme-court-ruling-biden-covid-vaccine-mandates.html

Christian Living, church, COVID, Government

Part 6 » The Christian’s Relationship to the Civil Government: The Confessions and Catechisms

Leave a comment

“To exercise authority, without recognizing and accepting the corresponding responsibility, is to act irresponsibly and is always sinful.”[1]

The last installment (Dec., 2021) dealt with the 5 limitations to the powers of the civil magistrate. And then COVID happened (to me), life got busy, and now it’s May. That certainly is not how I meant to end. At this point it feels kind of anti-climactic to continue with this examination. But before I can leave it alone, I still want to resolve two things. First, a summary of a variety of Reformed confessions and catechism to gain insight into what the church of 400 years ago thought of the Christian’s response to a magistrate who oversteps his bounds. Second, how the Christian should respond to instances of government overreach. This article will handle the first of these.

The first catechism to examine is the Heidelberg Catechism. In Q/A 104 it teaches that obedience to the fifth commandment requires, “that I show all honor, love and fidelity, to my father and mother, and all in authority over me, and submit myself to their good instruction and correction with due obedience; and also patiently bear with their weakness and infirmities, since it pleases God to govern us with their hand.” Here the Christian is called to obedience to all the “good instruction” the government may give. Ursinus, who is the primary author of this catechism, in his commentary on this question and answer, explains that the magistrate undermines this responsibility through tyranny. Ursinus describes tyranny as “demanding from their subjects what is unjust.”[2]

In Chapter 30 of the Second Helvetic Confession, it describes the duties of subjects of kings: “Therefore let them honor and reverence the magistrate as the minister of God; let them love him, favor him, and pray for him as their father; and let them obey all his just and fair commands.” The Second Helvetic essentially repeats the Heidelberg’s assertions, namely that the limits of the civil magistrate’s instruction are more than simply their national borders, but also justice and fairness. If the Christian is to obey all just and fair commands, the logical implication follows from these documents is that he is not obligated to obey unjust and unfair commands.

The Westminster Standards also address this issue in the Westminster Larger Catechism. As part of its Larger Catechism’s treatment on the fifth commandment, Q/A 130 notes that the sins of one in authority includes “commanding things unlawful…or anyway dishonoring themselves, or lessening their authority, by an unjust, indiscreet, rigorous, or remiss behavior.” In his commentary on the Larger Catechism, Johannes Vos primarily focuses on commands from people in authority that require sin on the part of its subjects. He cites the examples of Nebuchadnezzar’s command that all people worship the statue he set up, Darius’ command forbidding prayer, Amos being forbidden from prophesying by king Amaziah, and so on.[3] But it also lists Nabal as an example of an unjust authority. And though these examples may reinforce for us the limits of government, they do not aid us in determining a right Christian response.

More on that next time. Hopefully not five months from now.

[1] Johannes Vos, The Westminster Larger Catechism: A Commentary, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing), 353.

[2] Zacharias Ursinus, The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, (Philipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1852), 578.

[3] Johannes Vos, The Westminster Larger Catechism, 354.

10 Commandments, Christian Living, church, COVID, Government

Part 5 » The Christian’s Relationship to the Civil Government: The Limits of Power (Part II)

Leave a comment

Conflict

“A power ethical, politic, or moral, to oppress, is not from God, and is not a power, but a licentious deviation of a power, and is no more from God, but from sinful nature, and the old serpent.”
Samuel Rutherford, A Christian Manifesto

Last installment looked at the limits of different authorities, all of which God has instituted to serve Him in the world He created. Before moving on to the confessional statements about authority, specifically laid out in the fifth commandment, I want to revisit these three limitations by way of quick review, and add two additional thoughts.

In the limitations drawn out so far, this series outlined three specific ways the government’s authority is naturally limited. The civil government is limited first by its national borders. That seems fairly obvious. Second, they may not treat their citizens as their own property. Tyranny is men with a derived authority, acting as if they hold that authority as their possession. Tyranny itself is usually rejected, but the response is where the waters get muddy. More on that later. Third, governments must themselves be subject to the laws of their own nation.

In this article I want to add two more limits to lawful authority, specifically as it applies to the civil government. The fourth limit is that government is to act honestly with its citizens. It may not prosecute based on bearing false witness, neither may they use false pretenses to justify powers they would not usually hold. The state must prosecute and legislate honestly. Just to address the elephant in the room here, the next paragraph is not going to be that COVID is a hoax. But I am willing to say that a 2-year state of emergency based on an illness with a less than 1% mortality rate is not honest. These claims no longer serve as a justification for sweeping powers that certain governments want to appropriate for themselves: powers that control private business, medical rights, and even ecclesiastical matters. And when an authority uses dishonesty to expand its powers, they are working outside of the limits of the authority which has been entrusted to them.

The fifth limit is that government may not assume authority entrusted to others. That means the civil magistrate has no authority over the business of the church or family. Applying that principle in church and/or family is often easier and clearer. For example, the church is only free to proclaim what God’s word has plainly said, or what can be derived from it by good and necessary consequence. It may not enter into formal discipline for matters of conscience, but only clear, unrepentant violations of God’s commandments. When the church does either of these things it exceeds the limits of the authority entrusted to it. In the same way, fathers may not administer the sacraments to their families in their homes or excommunicate their children from the church. Ironically, within the Christian community when church and father exceeds the limits of their authority, there is a large outcry in the church. Justifiably so. Why not when the same thing is done by the civil magistrate?

Some may object to this and point to cases where the civil magistrate has rightly addressed fraud in the church or abuse in the home. But to think carefully through those examples, it is plain that when a church commits fraud, it is operating unlawfully in its ecclesiastical authority. Or when a husband abuses his wife or children, he is acting unlawfully, which moves beyond the boundaries of his authority as God has given it. Returning to the realm of the civil magistrate, that means the government is in no way to interfere with anything that rightly falls under the authority of the church and/or family. That means no control over any part of religious worship as was recently seen in COVID measures in several states in our Union, most notable California. That means no right to mandatory government education as is the case in several European nations. That means a respect for bodily autonomy. The authority of the civil magistrate has limits, and these should be respected.

By way of summary, let me just enumerate the five limits described above. The government is limited in its use of power in the following ways:

    1. The authority of any civil magistrate does not extend beyond its national borders. That would be a violation of the 8th commandment;
    2. Tyranny is not within the proper purview of government authority. Its citizens are not its property. To treat them as such would be a violation of the 1st and 8th commandments;
    3. Government must themselves operate under the rules and laws of their nation. That would be a violation of the 5th commandment;
    4. Falsehood and propaganda cannot be used as a means to justify authority that would otherwise be unlawful. That would be a violation of the 9th commandment;
    5. The magistrate may not encroach on authority given by God to another institution. That would be a violation of the 5th commandment.

The main point is that, as a servant of God appointed for the good of its citizens (Rom. 13:4), the Moral Law of God, summarized in the Ten Commandments also applies to the government. Its authority is exercised within the limits prescribed by God and the good laws of the commonwealth it governs.

Everything up to this point is to establish that the civil magistrate may overstep its rightful bounds. When other authorities like church and family do so, there is a reasonable expectation of response. And that should not be different in the case of the government either. The question that is so challenging is, what is that response? How does a Christian respond in a Christlike manner when the civil magistrate exceeds the limits of its powers. These questions will be addressed in our next installment.

Christian Living, COVID, Government, theology

Part 4 » The Christian’s Relationship to the Civil Government: the Limits of Its Power

Leave a comment

“Whenever obedience to man is inconsistent with obedience to God,
then disobedience becomes a duty.”[1]

At the start of this series, the mission statement was made: to help the Christian navigate an exercise of government power not previously experienced in my life-time. The virus that has troubled the world since the beginning of 2020 has subjected western society to a variety of mandates and restrictions, including businesses and churches. Christians everywhere have experienced these things, but there is disagreement about a proper response. There those who advocate for complete compliance, and those who have taken up what sounds like a Christian activism. This series represents an attempt to help Christians think clearly about this subject. Whatever our gut response may be, these articles are asking whether they are biblical. And to begin that critical assessment, this series began with a biblical study and the source and purpose for the power of the government.

First, we have seen from Romans 13 that all authority is given by God. That would include the authority that the civil magistrate has, even if behaving in an ungodly manner. Clearly, the biblical position of authority is that it is God-given. Second, we have also seen that the government exists as a servant of God. It is to carry out God’s vengeance on the wrongdoer and protect those who do good. The words “wrongdoer” and “good” are theological words, which must be biblically defined. A government will apply its power well, or poorly, and the report card is based on the biblical definitions of these words. And it is in this last observation that the problem arises. What does the Christian do when the government does not match up well to the biblical definitions of wrongdoing and goodness? Is there a point when the government’s authority is to be disobeyed because of its disregard for its function as God’s servant? What are the limits to this power?

To further complicate matters, there are other authorities in the world as well. That means there may be times when different authorities (all of whom God has provided) come into conflict with each other. For example, consider parental authority or church authority. This authority is also God-given, with its own set of responsibilities. These different authority structures further add to the difficulty of what may happen. For example, Colossians 3:20 says, “Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord.” What happens if the demands of the civil authority conflict with those of parents? Which is to be obeyed? As an example, what should happen when the government mandates that a child in kindergarten participate in an explicit “educational” presentation on human sexuality. Even if it is only factual, without any propaganda about the perversion of human sexuality, does the government have the implicit right to overturn the parents’ authority over the child, simply because they have God-given authority? The bring some clarity, consider these possible limits to government authority.

Man’s authority is always delegated. God provides authority for specific reasons. Parents are provided to train up their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. Elders are given to protect the church from false doctrine and encourage it toward love and good works. The civil magistrate is empowered to provide necessary order in society. For each of these positions of authority there are limits. That is because a father is not the owner of his children and the elder is not the master of the congregants. These things are easily seen. For example, most would agree that parents are not free to force their children to marry against their will. Or elders are not free to require all congregants to wear a yellow suit to church each Lord’s Day. And these are recognized limitations. There is much talk about hyper patriarchy in the family or toxic leadership in the church. If limits are readily recognized in these two realms, it is right to examine if the civil government’s authority can be wielded unlawfully as well. In doing so, several limits are discovered.

There is one obvious limit, which is also described in the quote at the top of the article. If a magistrate would require sin, he has clearly exercising authority unlawfully. I have not heard any Christian leader object to this principle in the last two years. The oft-quoted biblical instruction comes in Acts 4. Peter and John are ordered not to speak of Christ anymore. Their response is instructive for all authority relationships: “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.” (Acts 4:19-20, ESV). When any human authority requires sin, whether family or church or civil, the giver of all authority, God, is to be obeyed instead. But there are other limits on government authority as well.

First, each nation’s government is limited by its geographical bounds. The people of Germany do not obey the laws on the books in Canada. If you live in the United States you do not obey the mandates of Australia. That is because the authority of each nation state is limited to its own citizens. All nations live in such a way, and this limit is universally respected.

Second, a government may not exercise authority over its people as a tyrant. The government’s relationship with its citizens is not one of master and slave. The king is to carry out the good laws of the land with justice and equity.[2] For example, a government may not enter a citizen’s home and confiscate private property without process and just cause. A government may not force families to separate, requiring the wife to move to Miami, while ordering the man to live in Seattle. A government may not, at a random check point, confiscate your vehicle and take possession of it. Unless you live under a communist government, that is. The examples of these abuses could possibly all be obeyed without the citizen sinning in obeying it. And yet the government is not justified in acting as a tyrant because it denies its delegated authority. The government does not own all, and cannot behave as if it does. When government behaves this way, says Samuel Rutherford in Lex, Rex, they are acting as if their authority belongs to them as a right, not as a delegated power. Yet the men and women that make up government are not gods, but part of God’s creation, just as their citizens are. That means that since God is the giver of authority, government is to wield it as His servant.

Third, a government is bound by the laws of the land. These limits that are being ignored these days. In Acts 22, Paul has been rescued by the Roman cohort of soldiers from a violent Jewish mob. Paul was brought into the Roman barracks to examine him by flogging. Before this atrocious, unjust, and violent act could be committed against him, Paul reminds the tribune that he as civil magistrate is breaking the laws of the land which he may not do. “Is it lawful for you to flog a man who is a Roman citizen and uncondemned?” (Acts 22:25). It is, of course, a rhetorical question. It is not lawful for them to do so, and Paul reminds them of that. The tribune and his fellow examiners immediately reverse course. They are in positions of authority, but still under authority. They, as civil magistrate, do not live above the laws of the land, but must follow the rules of their country. It is at this point that many government abuses have taken place, at least in the United States.

Here is the point. All authority has limits because it is a derived authority. That does not mean there is a place where the civil magistrate behaves perfectly.  Since the fall, all authority is abused because it is exercised by sinful men. Today, governments are acting as a master over its people by assuming responsibility over its citizens’ consciences. Some will agree with what it is demanding and imposing, others not. The point is not agreement with policy, but limit of authority. Today, governments are failing to live under the laws of their own nations. In effect the government has become a law breaker. Again, some will agree with what it is demanding and imposing, and others not. The point is not agreement with policy, but limit of authority.

The reality for the Christian is that the government is assuming authority over people’s private businesses, their movements, their worship, and even their employment. For several members of the congregation I serve, this topic is not theoretical. It is a pressing matter that must be examined on the basis of principle, not preference. But what does the Christian do when a government behaves badly, even sinfully?

To help with that, it is always good to look at the reformed confessional statements for their understanding of what Scripture teaches on this matter. After that investigation is complete, perhaps we will be ready to consider what a proper response may be.

[1] Charles Hodge, Romans, (Carlisle, Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1972), 406

[2] Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex, or The Law and the Prince, (Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, 1982), 64-68.