In dealing with the ideals of a society, the Christian’s appeal is not to the Constitution of the United States, but rather to the word of God.

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.

Read More