Answering Six Questions About Christian Nationalism

A Response to Pastor Kevin DeYoung

Introduction

Recently, Pastor Kevin DeYoung published an article titled 6 Questions for Christian Nationalists. While his article was certainly not directed at me, as a Christian Nationalist I believe that his questions are good, and are worth responding to in order to advance the conversation. But before going into each of the six questions, I want to address what DeYoung says at the outset. He begins by stating several reasons for why he does not like the term ‘Christian Nationalist’:

1. There is no shared definition among Christian Nationalists.

2. One of the most prominent books, I presume the one by Dr. Stephen Wolfe, is disagreeable to DeYoung in many ways.

3. Nationalism itself is problematic to DeYoung, especially when tied to religion.

4. The loudest advocates for Christian Nationalism engage in insults and are sympathetic to racism, antisemitism, and Nazism.

In responding to this, I would say that it does not bother me if someone chooses not to adopt the label “Christian Nationalist.” But I also have no problem with the term, if defined properly. For example, when I publicly spoke at my local school board meeting and said that there were only two genders, I was labeled by the local newspaper as a Christian Nationalist. I therefore embraced the term, for I decided to not let the enemies of God make me live in fear of being called names.

That being said, here are my thoughts on DeYoung’s four reasons:

1. There is no agreed-upon definition for many important and useful terms. The term “Puritan” has a negative connotation to it, and the Puritans themselves had significant differences. For example, some Puritans advocated for enforced Presbyterianism across England, while other Puritans advocated for independent churches. Still others fled England for the American colonies. The same can be said for the definition of “Reformed.” Some would argue that, as a Baptist, I have no business calling myself Reformed. Others would say that “Reformed” only applies to soteriology (TULIP) or the Five Solas of the Reformation. So, the lack of a shared definition is not necessarily problematic, because there are numerous other situations where a term is still fine to use despite not having a uniform definition.
   

2. While Dr. Wolfe’s book is prominent, many other books have been written before him that advocated for things like Theonomy (not necessarily Christian Nationalism). To be clear, there is overlap between Christian Nationalism and Theonomy, with Theonomy being a subset of Christian Nationalism (broadly defined). Personally, I have read Dr. Wolfe’s book and agree with much of it, but disagree with other parts. Even so, I do not think that Dr. Wolfe is deviating at all from the historical position of the Magisterial Reformers. For my part, I have no problem disagreeing with Wolfe, since I also do not agree with everything that the Reformers advocated for.

3. Refusing to adopt the word “nationalism” is a matter of taste. Some people have negative feelings about that word, while others do not. To be clear, there is a form of nationalism that can include the bigotry and mistreatment of other nations. But there is also an older concept of nationalism that simply refers to the love of one’s nation and a desire to pursue the good of that nation. In short, the Fascists and Nazis ruined the term “nationalism” for the rest of us. But the term “nationalism” pre-existed those groups.
   

4. Identifying the loudest voices of Christian Nationalism is, in many ways, subjective. Do we count the number of tweets, likes, or views? There will always be trolls and degenerates within every group and movement. This is nothing new. In the New Testament, there were numerous false believers and sinners who associated themselves with either Jesus or the Church. Simon the Magician, Ananias and Sapphira, and Judas Iscariot are examples. The best we can do is rebuke such people and put them under Church discipline. At times, we just have to ignore them. Satan is always going to want to take something good/useful and drag it through the mud. This includes terms life “Reformed” and “Puritan,” and it also includes “Christian Nationalism” and “Theonomy.”

At this point, I will now response to each of DeYoung’s six questions and then his conclusion.

Response to Question 1

As long as we are defining terms properly, then I completely denounce antisemitism, racism, and Nazism without hesitation. But we should keep in mind that there are some Christians who would say that if we do not hold to Dispensationalism and defend the nation of Israel as God’s chosen people, then we are antisemitic. So, again, even the term ‘antisemitism’ does not have a universally agreed upon definition among Christians. But that does not mean we should never use the term.

Response to Question 2

DeYoung affirms that nations can be judged by God, but, citing Robert Dabney, he does not think that a nation can be viewed as a “corporate moral person.”

I would disagree with both Dabney and DeYoung on this point. There is a covenantal aspect to nationhood in which both the individual and the corporate act in a moral manner. The “association of persons” mentioned by Dabney is not just a random gaggle. It is a covenanted body (i.e., a constituted body). And by covenant I am not saying that it is equivalent to the Mosiac Covenant. There are covenants beyond those between God and his people. Marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman, and God. And there are also civic covenants (like between Jacob and Laban) regarding land boundaries. Interestingly, the Latin word foedus, where we get the word ‘federal’ or ‘federalism’, simply means ‘covenant’. And so, I would argue that states and nations are covenanted groups.

Consider the church as a corporate body. The church is made up of believers, but we know that not everyone is regenerate. Furthermore, the church is analogous to the human body. And a human body is not just a collection of random toes, fingers, hair, teeth, and eyeballs. It has all those things, but those things fit together in a coordinated manner for a joint purpose.

A nation is similar. It is not just a random smattering of people all tossed onto one piece of land. It is a type of body. Interestingly, in our judicial system, both corporations and states/nations are legally treated as persons. Consider the following things that nations do:

1. States/Nations can own property.

2. States/Nations can commit crimes.

3. States/Nations can be sued in court.

4. States/Nations can make deliberate moral/ethical decisions.

5. States/Nations can enter into agreements and treaties with others.

6. States/Nations can make, and break, promises.

7. States/Nations can engage in self-defense of both people and property.

8. States/Nations can be healthy or unhealthy.

9. States/Nations can mourn or celebrate corporately (i.e., national holidays)

10. States/Nations can have a distinct culture/identity (i.e., personality)

Also note that the above things are things that persons do, suggesting that corporate bodies can act as persons.

Having said all of this, I do agree with Dabney when he says that “the way to make a Christian nation is to make the people in the nation Christian.” But I would add that as more and more individuals become Christians they will begin to do “Christian things” at a corporate level. This not only includes forming and joining churches, but also creating and forming other institutions such as civil orders or businesses that operate in submission to Christ as Lord.

Now, DeYoung recognizes that nations “can outlaw abortion, sodomy, and pornography.” But then he suggests that Christian Nationalists like Doug Wilson are advocating for the criminalization of things like mammon-worship because such things also “make God angry.” This appears to be attacking a strawman, as Christian Nationalists such as Doug Wilson and Stephen Wolfe have, on multiple occasions, explained the difference between sins and crimes. When Wilson says that we should stop doing things that make God angry, the charitable way to understand that statement is to take it as a figure of speech, not necessarily a desire to punish thought-crimes.

From my perspective as a Theonomist, the domain in which the civil magistrate can operate is determined by Scripture. Neither Christian Nationalists nor Theonomists are asking for the civil magistrate to punish sins of the heart. But, contrary to DeYoung’s position, I have no problem with the civil magistrate punishing certain religious expressions. For example, while we should not expect or ask the civil magistrate to force people to stop serving Allah in their hearts, we can ask the civil magistrate to not allow the Muslim call to prayer in the public square. But, regardless of what position we hold on matters of religious expression, we need to look to God’s law-word to see what responsibilities he has given to the civil magistrate.

Response to Question 3

In asking this question, DeYoung seems to be misunderstanding the Christian Nationalist idea that the government has the authority “to direct man to his highest and heavenly good.” Now, I personally do not use that phrase, but prefer the phrase “praise the good” from Romans 13. Civil magistrates are to praise that which is good, including obedience to the living God. That is, civil rulers should verbally and publicly encourage and promote both the worship of God and obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ. In this way, the civil magistrate does direct a man to his highest and heavenly good using words and declarations. Additionally, I believe that civil magistrates can and should protect the Sabbath so that citizens have the opportunity and encouragement to worship God. This is something that was enforced even in 19^th Century Pennsylvania (see Mohney v. Cook, 1855). By establishing Sabbath laws, the civil government is orienting/pointing someone or encouraging/guiding someone to use the Lord’s Day for its purpose. Similarly, by calling for days of prayer, fasting, or thanksgiving (as both Thomas Jefferson and George Washington did), the civil government is directing the people toward heavenly things.

DeYoung continues to misunderstand the Christian Nationalist position when he suggests that Christian Nationalism is “concerned with the whole perfection of man.” While I personally do not use such language, neither Dr. Wolfe nor Pastor Wilson use that phrase to suggest that the government can remove the corruption of sin from within the human heart. The language of perfection should be understood similarly to the language of “a more perfect union” used by the Founding Fathers. They did not use the phrase to refer to sinlessness or lack of corruption, but rather were speaking about an improved functionality and completeness.

DeYoung goes on to contrast Christian Nationalism with the American founding by saying that the latter focused on designing a government that will frustrate man’s sinful inclinations. Again, I believe that DeYoung is attacking a strawman. From what I have seen, Christian Nationalists are not bemoaning the Constitution (although I could be mistaken on this point). As a Theonomist, I have great respect for the Constitution. In fact, I would argue that the American experiment was directly influenced by the example of the Republic of Israel in the Old Testament. Consider these statements from Pastor Samuel Langdon in 1788 in his sermon titled, The Republic of the Israelites an Example to the American States. Of note, Pastor Langdon was also the President of Harvard in the 1770s.

“As to everything excellent in their constitution of government, except what was peculiar to them as a nation separated to God from the rest of mankind, the Israelites may be considered as a pattern to the world in all ages; and from them we may learn what will exalt our character, and what will depress and bring us to ruin.”

“That as God in the course of his kind providence hath given you an excellent constitution of government, founded on the most rational, equitable, and liberal principles, by which all that liberty is secured which a people can reasonably claim, and you are empowered to make righteous laws for promoting public order and good morals; and as he has moreover given you by his Son Jesus Christ, who is far superior to Moses, a complete revelation of his will, and a perfect system of true religion, plainly delivered in the sacred writings; it will be your wisdom in the eyes of the nations, and your true interest and happiness, to conform your practice in the strictest manner to the excellent principles of your government, adhere faithfully to the doctrines and commands of the gospel, and practice every public and private virtue.”

Whether or not Christians today agree with Pastor Langdon’s statements, we ought to recognize that they show the context in which the United States was formed. But DeYoung declares that the government should not determine true religion from false religion. I argue that it must do so at some point. For how can it decide which organizations qualify as religions for the purposes of tax exemption? And consider the office of military chaplain. To be a military chaplain, a person must receive his ordination/endorsement from a Christian denomination recognized by the federal government. Of course, the chaplaincy has now expanded beyond Christianity, whereas fifty years ago there were no Wiccan chaplains. But the point stills stands that the civil magistrate must always distinguish between true and false religions in some way and at some point.

Response to Question 4

In this question, DeYoung considers the phrase “promote the true religion.” He then expresses disagreement with the idea of state-sponsored religion. Now, as a Theonomist, I sympathize with him and recognize that this is a point of disagreement between Theonomists and many Christian Nationalists. To DeYoung’s point, I do not think it is a good idea to have either a national church or a state church. That being said, a state church is actually completely constitutional under the First Amendment as it originally was understood. For example, in the early 1800s New Hampshire had established congregationalism, in which congregational churches were supported by taxation. Today we might say that such activity was unwise, but we cannot say that it was unconstitutional.

Even in states where there was no establishment of a denomination, there was still a requirement of basic Christian belief for civil magistrates to hold office. Here is an excerpt from the Pennsylvania Charter of 1701:

“And that all Persons who also profess to believe in Jesus Christ, the Savior of the World, shall be capable (notwithstanding their other Persuasions and Practices in Point of Conscience and Religion) to serve this Government in any Capacity.”

And here is an excerpt from the 1776 Pennsylvania Constitution regarding elected officials:

“And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration: I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine Inspiration.”

Would DeYoung approve of such a requirement today? He seems to indicate that he would, just as I would.

In fact, it is probably at this point that DeYoung and I agree the most. For he is critical of the original Westminster Confession of Faith’s statement regarding the duties of the civil magistrate. I join him in those criticisms while also making the following qualifications:

1. I believe there is a role for the civil magistrate to protect the Sabbath and to punish blasphemy. In fact, blasphemy was punished in Pennsylvania well into the 1800s (see Updegraph v. Commonwealth, 1824).
   

2. I do not think that the civil magistrate can call for a church council or synod to resolve doctrinal disputes, but I have no problem with the civil magistrate asking for a gathering of church leaders to help figure out the best course of action regarding a civil matter or matter of justice/law.
   

3. DeYoung does not like the idea of the civil magistrate determining true religion, and even says that government is not competent to answer metaphysical and spiritual questions. But is it a metaphysical question to ask whether or not God exists? What about whether or not there are two genders or if gender is a social construct? What about whether or not unborn babies are persons? The government has to be able to answer these questions. But even if we only refer to matters of doctrine, it would be strange to say that the government is incompetent or unable to answer such questions. We could perhaps say that it is not the government’s responsibility to answer such questions, but I would not say that it is unable to do so. For example, if I were to run for public office and become elected, I would not immediately lose my theological beliefs or my ability to read, interpret, and apply Scripture. It might not be my responsibility to do so as an elected official, but it would be strange to say that I am unable to discern theological matters as a governor, senator, or congressman.

Response to Question 5

In this question concerning the First Amendment, I agree with DeYoung that the amendment does not require that Christian symbols be removed from the public square. But I do not think that the amendment requires us to treat non-Christian religions as equal to the Christian faith. As I mentioned before, multiple states had established churches even after the First Amendment was adopted. Furthermore, there were both Sabbath laws and blasphemy laws that were enforced even in the very inclusive state of Pennsylvania. This can only make sense if one recognizes that the First Amendment was primarily referring to the Christian religion and avoiding the establishment of one denomination over another at the federal level. It was in no way treating non-Christian religions as equal to Christianity.

This does not mean that people do not have a basic liberty of conscience and freedom to private worship. The early American Jews were protected because they did not attempt to dominate the public square, violate the Christian Sabbath, or blaspheme Jesus publicly. And so, as long as a citizen chooses to keep his non-Christian faith private, he is protected by the First Amendment. But the First Amendment does not allow for the public Muslim call to prayer or the erecting of a large Hindu idol.

Interestingly, when DeYoung responds to Wilson’s references to Islamic honor killings and Aztec human sacrifice, DeYoung says that those activities are already illegal and are therefore not applicable examples. But DeYoung misses the point. Why are such things illegal in the first place? Why not allow such practices? They are only illegal because our law system, founded on English Common Law, was formed and influenced from Scripture. This dates back to the late 800s when King Alfred the Great published his law code and placed the Mosaic Law at the very front of it. If we were under Sharia Law, honor killings would not be a problem at all.

What concerns me the most at this point is DeYoung’s statement that Muslim worship and practice must be “an Americanized Islam.” I fear that what he is hoping for is an impossibility. Can Muslim worship and practice truly be Americanized to the point that it can occupy the public square while submitting itself to a law system that is fundamentally Christian in origin? Events in England, Minnesota, and Michigan seem to indicate otherwise.

In the case of other non-Christian religions, like Mormonism, they were required to conform to a Christian law-code. For example, when Utah wanted to become a state, it had to adopt monogamy and ban polygamy before Congress granted it statehood (see The Enabling Act of 1894). I say this to show that non-Christian religions can exist so long as they do not seek to change/undermine the law system and do not seek to dominate the public square.

Response to Question 6

When it comes to this question, I would agree with DeYoung that Christian Nationalists do not all have the same vision of what a nation should look like. But, as a reminder, the same could be said of the Puritans. Some wanted to force the Presbyterian system across England, Scotland, and Ireland. Others, like Oliver Cromwell, wanted to allow for independent churches.

As a Theonomist, I would argue that the Republic of Israel in the Old Testament serves as a model for the best political order in any nation, not just America. Other Christian Nationalists would not hold this position, but I believe (along with Samuel Langdon, whom I quoted earlier) that Israel is a pattern given to us by which we should establish civil society. To reinforce this point, here is a citation from Daniel Elazar’s book, Exploring Federalism. Elazar is President of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and the Director of the Center for the Study of Federalism at Temple University.

“There have been three critical federal experiments in the history of humanity to date. The Israelite tribal federation described in the Bible was the first. More than three thousand years ago, it formulated the founding principle of federalism by transforming the vassal treaty among unequals into a covenant among equal partners that led to the establishment of a polity of tribes maintaining their liberties within the framework of a common constitution and law. Although external pressures ultimately brought about the demise of the tribal federation as a regime, the Jewish people lived on as the first federal people, and they have continued to use federal principles in their internal organization to the present day. The second was the Swiss Confederation. Seven hundred years ago it preserved liberty in medieval Europe. Later it fostered the principal liberating stream of the Protestant Reformation and survived to create a garden spot in the world, self-governed by free people. The third was the United States of America. Two hundred years ago it became the first modern federation and, more recently, the first federal superpower, which showed the way to combine freedom and federalism in a continental-sized polity.” (emphasis mine)

Although I appreciate, and agree with, much of DeYoung’s look at political history among the Reformed faith, my primary counter-argument is that we need to get our ultimate direction from Scripture. I do not believe that God is silent about how large groups of people organize themselves, and how civil magistrates are to pursue justice here on earth. We should always be reforming, not just within the Church but within the civil sphere as well.

Conclusion

DeYoung ends his article with the argument that the Christian Nationalist vision is simply not practical at this time. He argues that we need to be realists and avoid idealism. But I would argue that a healthy balance is needed. Certainly, the Apostles and the early Church fathers articulated how Christians should ideally behave and how churches should ideally function. And, in many ways, the Church has improved over time. Most Bible-believing churches are not celebrating men having sex with their father’s wives or getting drunk at the Lord’s Supper. We should be thankful for such progress.

Similarly, we can and should pursue progress in our families, businesses, and societies. This is nothing more than a corporate form of sanctification. As Christians, we can and should have an idea of what we are aiming for. To give an example, if a Christian man runs for public office, he should have a goal in mind that is firmly grounded in Scripture. William Wilberforce was such a man, who did not see the slave trade end until several decades of hard work. Despite facing great opposition, even from Christians, Wilberforce continued his efforts and trusted in God. We should do the same.

But DeYoung seems to ridicule idealism when he says that “those with the most outlandish proposals are the ones farthest from any levels of power and most distant from any established institution.” Well, I would say that I probably have some outlandish proposals (abolishing property tax, abolishing public schools, abolishing abortion, abolishing no-fault divorce, privatizing roads, etc.). But as someone who has been in the government for 19 years, I would not say that I am distant from any established institution.

DeYoung goes on to boldly proclaim that “we are not overturning the Nineteenth Amendment” and that “America is not going to become a general equity theonomic republic.” My response, to borrow a phrase from a good friend of mine, would be, “Not with that attitude!”

But, in all seriousness, I would counter with the fact that, in 1776, there were Americans who doubted that slavery would ever end in the United States. Furthermore, who could have ever imagined in 1800 that our nation would one day enact the prohibition of alcohol and then remove that amendment 13 years after enacting it? And how many people on September 11, 2001 would have believed that New York would be run by a Communist Muslim just over 20 years later? Anyone making those claims would have been accused of being an idealist or just plain insane. But here we are.

Now, DeYoung is correct when he points out that none of these things will happen overnight. And, to his point, we probably cannot bulldoze the Buddhist temple immediately. But we should keep in mind that there was a time when there were no casinos in Pennsylvania. It might take time to get rid of them, along with all of the Planned Parenthood clinics and strip clubs, but we should not stop trying.

And it is worth mentioning here that none of this requires a Postmillennial eschatology. Christians of any eschatological perspective should be okay with pursuing (through legal means) the closure of casinos, abortion clinics, and strip clubs. And doing the same with a 155-foot Hindu statue of Lord Murugan in North Carolina should not be off the table.

On a brief sidenote, while Theonomy does not require a Postmillennial eschatology, Postmillennialism allows for long-term planning while not being discouraged or demoralized by temporary declines or setbacks. But I am not Postmillennial simply because it is encouraging and optimistic. I believe that it is the only way to consistently understand the story of redemption. And while time does not allow me to expound upon the numerous applicable passages, I want to say a few brief words about Isaiah 9 and 1 Corinthians 15.

In the case of Isaiah 9:6-7, I do not know how else we can understand the text when it says, “of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end…from this time forth and forevermore.” When did Jesus start shouldering the government and when was the kingdom of God first inaugurated? And if that began at his resurrection and ascension (when he said that all authority on heaven and earth had been given to him), then what does it mean for his government to increase with no end from “this time forth and forevermore?” Paired with the parables of the mustard seed and leaven, as well as with the small stone from the book of Daniel, a strong case can be made for Postmillennialism.

As for 1 Corinthians 15:24-26, when Paul speaks of Christ’s return, he says that Christ will “deliver the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.” Paul then says that Jesus “must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.” Well, if Christ is reigning now (which many of our Christmas hymns affirm, along with the words of Jesus himself at the Great Commission), then this reign is going to increase and grow until all of Christ’s enemies are destroyed. But the last enemy, death itself, will not be destroyed until the resurrection of the dead, which will happen when Christ returns. This picture that Paul paints lines up quite well with Isaiah 9. Taken together, we see that Christ reigns even now over both heaven and earth as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. And this reign will continue to grow and increase throughout history until it is time for Christ to defeat the last enemy, death. This is the Postmillennial hope. The hope of the gospel.

Returning now to the realm of American politics, even though I am a Postmillennial Theonomist, I recognize that nothing will change overnight (or even in my lifetime). Nor do I necessarily advocate for ending things immediately even if we had the votes to do so. For example, I believe that the welfare state should end completely. But cutting off all federal benefits programs cold turkey would probably be devastating for too many people who have become dependent upon the government. Such programs have to be ended over time, like a drug addict who needs to get clean. This requires wisdom and can be filed under the category of ‘statecraft’.

But, contrary to DeYoung’s article, taking steps to pursue justice and reform the government is not an attempt to “realize heaven on earth.” There have been good societies and bad societies, and there have been times where great injustices were being committed by civil magistrates. We can probably all agree that the American experiment was a great improvement over Tsarist Russia or medieval England. But why was it better? I would argue, as Elazar does, that it was better because America patterned itself very closely after the federalist Republic of Israel in the Old Testament. I would also add that this only continued to work so long as the people of America remained faithful to the Lord Jesus Christ.

In the end, DeYoung says that he wants “more Christian ideas in the public square.” But would that include ideas like Christian Nationalism and Theonomy? He also says that he wants “more sincere and wise Christians in positions of power.” Fair enough. But what should they do and pursue when they get into positions of power? I would argue that Scripture must be our guide. And if God says that the civil magistrate can answer certain questions, wield certain amounts of power, and punish evil while praising the good, then we must trust that God knows what he is talking about. We should not claim to be wiser than God and say that the civil magistrate is not allowed to do what God has ordained it to do. Rather, we should recognize and affirm that God calls the civil magistrate his deacon, or servant, to act as an avenger against the evildoer. And even though the current government of the United States is drifting further from God, we have a duty to call the civil magistrate back to obedience and to teach the magistrate what it means to do justice.

---