A preliminary report from the 400,000-member conservative Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) has denounced most of what is associated with self-identified advocates of Christian Nationalism, which is good news.
But do denominational declarations still matter?
The report warns, amid a suggested “crisis of masculinity,” there is “nothing can justify ungodliness in speech, or in conduct.” And “crass language, unclean speech, and disdain for the good name of our neighbors must not be excused.”
It also strongly denounces “some expressions of what is called Christian Nationalism that embrace forms of antisemitism, race realism, and Kinism” that “advocate for the segregation of different ethnicities and cultures.”
It also rejects that magistrates may conduct “persecution of persons, the coercion of conscience, the molestation of peaceable religious assembly, or exclusion from public office” or disenfranchise “citizens on the basis of religion,” affirming that “God created of one man all humanity in his image.”
It warns that that the Ordo Amoris does not condone “preferential treatment of one’s own ethnic group ahead of any other…or that race or ethnicity may, in any way, function as a moral norm directing or defining love for neighbor.”
It denies that “cultural anxieties or social change justify profane speech or contempt for women,” and notes that “complementarity does not preclude women’s participation in education, civic life, or public service,” as “political authority must remain accountable to justice and be exercised for the good of all.”
It denies “that rejecting the label ‘Christian Nationalism’ means one is in favor of a hostile, secularist, anti-Christian Nationalism,” as “there are other ways to affirm the influence of Christian ideas and Christian individuals on our civic life.”
It affirms that “in God’s providence, liberal political orders—of the kind that have shaped America—have secured genuine goods, including protections for religious liberty, limitations on arbitrary political power, recognition of human dignity, and the expansion of certain civil and political rights.”
It warms that “Christians should not embrace reactionary alternatives that sacrifice justice, liberty, or charity, as Americans “are bound by Holy Scripture to give thanks to Almighty God for the common grace liberties and blessings of civil society, and to work for the preservation and further cultivation of those blessings according to their several callings.” It also denies that “Western liberal traditions are beyond critique, especially in their more radical and individualistic forms.”
It admits that “when we encounter Christians today who advocate for a closer relationship between church and state—whether they call themselves Christian Nationalists, theocrats, establishmentarians, or simply concerned citizens who want to see Christian values reflected in law—we have to remember that many of these positions were held by the theological giants of our own tradition.”
It notes that the “Westminster Divines themselves held views on the civil magistrate that no PCA officer could affirm without exception today,” and “John Calvin, John Knox, Samuel Rutherford, and George Gillespie all held positions that are, in important respects, at variance with the PCA’s 1788 constitutional Standard.”
The 1646 Westminster Confession expected magistrates to enforce “true” religion, while the 1788 American revision obliges magistrates to protect religious freedom. This report declares that the “PCA’s constitutional standard on the civil magistrate is the 1788 American revision of the Westminster Confession of Faith,” which is a “substantive change from the 1646 original, particularly with respect to the magistrate’s authority in matters of religion,” but “officers in the PCA are bound to the 1788 text by their ordination vows.”
These affirmations from an influential denomination are important. Christian Nationalism, with its calls for a confessional state that would privilege Christians and discriminate against non-Christians, and disenfranchise women, continues to grow, especially among Christian young men. Notably, most self-professed Christian Nationalists are Presbyterian or from another branch of the Reformed Tradition, and they often cite the 1646 Westminster Confession as their guidebook.
But the PCA declaration, while helpful and thoughtful, may have minimal impact on Christian Nationalism’s votaries, who delight in naughtiness and contrariness. While ostensibly believers in authority and hierarchy, they are chiefly online bad boys who define themselves against whatever they deem the establishment.
A Christian Nationalist online influencer will not be discouraged by a denominational denunciation and instead will be animated by it. Christian Nationalism is ascending thanks largely to the decline of denominations and the absence of effective gatekeepers in American Christianity. Today, American religion increasingly is led and governed by popular online personalities who are fueled by controversy.
The PCA preliminary report is an intelligent resource for resistance against Christian Nationalism. But sadly, it likely will not seriously impede Christian Nationalism’s growth, even among the PCA’s own members.
More from IRD:
Theobros Radicalizing Young Christians
No comments yet
Leave a Reply