One of the things I learned from the late Dr. Gary North was the importance of intellectual honesty. A fierce debater, skilled writer, and an ardent Postmillennialist, North openly acknowledged what he called “the Achilles heel of postmillennialism” was Revelation 20:7-10 where a small number of saints are surrounded in the last battle by the hordes of Satan. It didn’t daunt him or change his position, but was in his mind the weakest link in that eschatological system. Whether someone agreed with North or not, his willingness to admit an opponent’s valid argument was refreshing.

We see this in Solomon’s words in Proverbs 18, where someone presents a case for something and it sounds correct…until someone else offers a counter-argument or explanation.  When a student presents a thesis statement, a good teacher will prod that student with questions, even if the teacher agrees with the thesis. In the spirit of Proverbs 18:17, I propose one significant question that has not received enough consideration by those who support Christian nationalism (CN) and another question for those who oppose it.

In the interest of full disclosure, I speak as one who longs for the return of Christendom and prays for the fires of reformation to ignite from New England to New Mexico, and that love for Christ and His law would burn in the hearts of men from the coasts of California to the swamps of the Carolinas.

The best book-length explanations for CN that I know of are Stephen Wolfe’s The Case for Christian Nationalism and Doug Wilson’s Mere Christendom. Both make the same point – America was founded as an (unofficially) Protestant, Christian country and, through taking the proper steps, she can return to being a Christian country as demonstrated by her national and local laws as well as her Christian biases.[1] Both books present mostly decentralized visions of what this will look like and how this will take place. Although these versions of Christian Nationalism lean more libertarian, writers at The American Reformer website push towards more vigorous government involvement to bring about those same goals. Call it using Big Brother’s means to achieve John Calvin’s ends.

On the other side of the Tiber, there are Roman Catholics, known as Integralists, who are even more blunt in their prescriptions. Harvard Law professor Adrian Vermule calls for a Christian/Roman Catholic takeover of the administrative state to steer the country back towards open Christianity.[2] It is no secret among Integralists that forced loyalty to the Pope is the end that they are pursuing. It is an ambitious and audacious plan. Other Integralists of note are Thomas Pink and Edmund Waldenstein. While there are differences between the two groups, both Integralists and Protestant Christian Nationalists hate the secularism and political nihilism of the day and want to restore the Christian basis of the country.

People cite a number of reasons for not supporting the CN movement. Some mention the “tone,” and “mood,” of CN as a factor, as well as the fear of the loss of civil rights for non-Christian minorities. While those arguments can be discussed, the greatest argument I see against CN is this – there is no call for establishing an explicitly Christian society in the New Testament. We are Evangelicals – people who, at least at one time, expected all teachings about the Christian life to come from Scripture. How do we argue that something is imperative for Christians when the apostles and early church fathers, living in a worse society than ours, didn’t call for it? “But what about the Old Testament?” one might say. I’m glad you asked.

How do we know what carries over from the Old Covenant to the New? We’re sure the Ten Commandments continue, while the sacrifices do not. What about the penalties for crimes, or slavery laws, or genocide for pagans (as was commanded in Exodus and Numbers and is never repudiated)? While I believe there are clear answers to these questions – as do the Westminster Divines who wrote our confession of faith – the interpretive methods handed to us from those men limit how much we can import from the Old Testament to the New. We can take Israel as our example of becoming a Christian nation, but they were specifically chosen by God as the holy nation in the Old Covenant. The writers of the New Testament emphasize that God’s holy nation has been expanded to include Jews and Gentiles, not that each group gets to become its own holy nation.[3] There is the call to go into all nations, under the authority of Christ, and make disciples (Matt. 28:18-20). The methods of this discipleship are through baptizing them and teaching them to obey what Christ taught, which is modeled for us by the apostles in the New Testament. Therefore, in discussions with those who disagree with Christian nationalism, it is necessary to acknowledge that when Jesus, Peter, Paul, John, and all other N.T. writers spoke, they never called for the ancient Christians to actively pursue the goals of Christian nationalism. In fact, Paul uses strong language to emphasize the importance of keeping peace with our neighbors as much as is humanly possible (1 Thess. 4:11-12).

With that said, what about those who oppose CN? They have several issues to deal with as well. CN’s most famous Christian critics (e.g. Russell Moore and David French) argue against it based on their commitment to American democratic liberalism.[4] Some disagree with it because they believe that the church should not have an active place in civil society. This is often called “radical two-kingdom theology” and its proponents are R. Scott Clark and David Van Drunnen.[5] Others oppose CN on classical liberal/libertarian grounds.[6] Then there are those who, while they appreciate the “Christian” portion of CN, prefer “Christian globalism” instead.[7]

But the greatest weakness of anti-Christian Nationalists comes down to a simple question: what is a political leader to do when he/she becomes a Christian? More explicitly, how should following Christ affect the way a ruler leads his people? I realize this conflates CN with the broader desire to live in a Christian society, but that’s what many who support CN really want and they don’t see any other viable alternatives proposed.  

The prophet Jonah faced this dilemma when he was called to preach to the people of Ninevah. The result was that the king of Ninevah repented; not only that but the king required that his people do the same, going so far as to demand that they and their animals don the mourning attire of sackcloth and ashes (Jonah 3:8). Jonah was disgusted. He wanted the destruction of God’s enemies, not their repentance. As in Jonah’s day, many would-be prophets delight in the doom God will bring upon His enemies but have no plan for how to disciple local rulers who want to know how God’s wisdom applies to them and their work.[8]

Daniel was a faithful public servant to several kings over many decades. Through his words, his wisdom, and his calm willingness to die for his personal beliefs, two kings were converted. They in turn called for their people to do the same.

Yet the role of a public leader is different now than in the past. In ancient societies there was no division between religion and public life – it was an organic whole. Today the Enlightenment project of a separation between God and government is more rigid than ever.[9] Even when a public official becomes a Christian, he is not viewed as a father to his people the way kings were in ancient and medieval society.[10] Today Christian rulers may more closely adhere to the exhortation John the Baptist gave to the Roman soldiers who asked what they must do now that they believed in God. He simply told them to not intimidate or threaten violence unjustly, to not accuse falsely, and to be content with their pay. In a sense, John recalled the words of Micah 6:8, “Do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly before your God.” In other words, following God’s commandments in their daily work was how these leaders were to live their faith in public.

While there are some issues about which the Church has decided conclusively, e.g. the Trinity, the divine and human nature of Christ, and the necessity of sacraments, most issues have a wide degree of latitude and invite vigorous debate. Disagreement among Christians on social issues, as Jesus said of the poor, we will always have with us. But we should debate them with wisdom, strength, and humility, presenting the strengths and acknowledging the weaknesses of our views, all the while striving to grow in our love for Christ, His world, and our neighbor.

Matt Carpenter is the Associate Pastor at Trinity Reformed Church. He taught history for fifteen years and has served in pastoral ministry for thirteen years. He is married to Amanda and they have four children: Phoebe, Simeon, Emmaline, and Olivia. In his spare time he enjoys cooking, reading, hiking, and fishing. 

[1] We must make do with such a broad definition as there is no definitional agreement among CN’s proponents, much less its opponents.

[2] Law and Leviathan: Redeeming the Administrative State

[3] See Romans 11, Galatians 2-3, and 1 Peter 2, just to name a few places.

[4] My brief critique of their critique can be summarized with the word, “Ick.” For a lengthier critique, the word “balderdash” is appropriate.

[5] It is interesting that Stephen Wolfe uses two-kingdom theology as the basis for Christian nationalism, but not in the same way as Clark and Van Drunnen. The two-kingdoms tradition is very broad.

[6] Lest we act too hastily to criticize this type of thinking, Scottish Common-Sense philosophy was the pre-eminent philosophy of many of our Founding Fathers, which they married with their Christianity (See John Witherspoon and the Founding of the American Republic, by Jeffrey Morrison).

[7] See Andrew Sandlin’s comments in this interview. https://christoverall.com/article/concise/transcript-interview-with-p-andrew-sandlin-and-joe-boot-on-christian-nationalism/

[8] Peter Leithart has a short piece of satire about Jonah in Against Christianity.

[9] This is evidenced in the 2003 case of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who was told by a federal court judge that he must remove a Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama Supreme Court. At that time surveys showed that the majority of the people of Alabama (Alabama!) wanted Moore to abide by the federal court order, which he refused to do. Whether they agreed with the sentiments of such a monument being displayed, when a majority of the citizens of a Red State like Alabama are uncomfortable with a publicly religious stand, you don’t have the makings of a Christian republic.

[10] This is the point made by Edward Habsburg, one of the would-be heirs to the Austrian monarchy, in his refreshing book, The Habsburg Way: Seven Rules for Turbulent Times. He explains that a modern-day monarch is much more of an example to his people than an actual ruler.