In my last weekly email I wrote about the intersection of the “public square” and religion. All people–religious or irreligious–bring their own metaphysical and moral commitments (more simply, their religious commitments) to bear on the public square. So, to have a “secular” public square is not only impossible, but not even desirable. We need religious arguments to make sense of the good, true, and beautiful. Therefore, Christians should not blush at implementing their distinctively Christian moral convictions in the voting booth, in company policies, or on school boards.
But what does that actually look like?
If you have frequented the internet in the last couple of years you have likely heard the phrase “Christian nationalism.” Unfortunately, the term has become so ambiguous that it has nearly lost all meaning. Much like the term “woke,” it largely appears to only be used in a derisive manner–a pejorative used to delegitimize others. Just like some conservatives will call anyone talking about minorities or injustice “woke,” some progressives will call anyone advocating traditional morality in the public a “Christian nationalist.” It is a way to stop conversation with tar and feathers. But it is so smokey and diffuse that it is difficult to find any one definition. At times, it is used in a way that I want to rightly criticize, and other times it is used in a way to describe what I see as basic Christian morality. If what happened on January 6th was Christian nationalism, I want nothing to do with it; if trying to stop children from being killed in the womb is Christian nationalism, how could any Christian not support it? So, the wider I have read on this issue, the more I am convinced that the term is unhelpful, either for criticism negatively or for construction positively.
But, I do believe that Christians must think about how to engage in the public square, for the good of their community, and the nation. What I want to do here is try to lay out two principles that hopefully puncture problems on both sides of the debate of whatever someone means by “Christian nationalism.” In another email, I will lay out two additional principles.
Principle #1: The State and Church Have Two Different Missions, Not Two Different Spheres
It is the prerogative of the church to make disciples, baptize them, and teach all Christ has commanded (Matt 28:18-20). The state, however, is given to punish evil and reward righteousness. These two institutions have two different purposes and so, appropriately, they have been given two different tools of authority. The sword has been given to the State (Rom 13) and the keys of the kingdom have been given to the Church (Matt 16:19; 18:18). The “keys of the kingdom” is the authority Jesus has granted the local church to identify who genuine Christians are and to hold them accountable to the faith, or identify false “christians” whose lives contradict the faith and remove them from membership (see Matt 18:15-20; 1 Cor 5). The “sword” is the authority that God gives the state to execute justice against evil and to praise good behavior (Rom 13:1-7; 1 Pet 2:14).
So, if a man attempts to murder someone else, it is the responsibility of the state to punish him through issuing a penal sentence of some kind (the sword). But if that man also happened to be a member of a local church, it would be that church’s responsibility to practice church discipline and remove that man from the membership roles (the keys). If the state attempted to make any proclamation on the condition of the man’s soul, or the church attempted to issue out punitive civil judgments, this would be a missional confusion. The church cannot act like the state, and the state cannot act like the church. The state and church have two different purposes, so any perspective on civil engagement which blurs those lines is defunct.
But that being said, this does not mean that the Church and State inhabit two different “spheres” of authority. If a Church is providing cover for a man who is molesting children, they cannot turn away authorities at the doors of the Church, claiming the State has no authority here. No, God has made the State, not the Church, His minister of vengeance (Rom 13:4). Similarly, if the State erects a giant golden statue and commands all individuals to bow down and worship it or they will be thrown into a fiery furnace, the Church is not obligated to obey, even if this only takes place “in the public square.”
The separation between Church and State, in other words, isn’t a separation of domain, but purpose. So, again, while any perspective on civil engagement which blurs the lines on the mission of the State or Church is defunct, this doesn’t mean that the Church is sequestered to only make judgments on Sunday morning, or that the State is prohibited from ever requiring the Church to submit to its authority. (The one qualification, of course, to this is that the State can err and can attempt to require the Church to sin, wherein their authority is then null and void, see Acts 4:19, 5:29)
Principle #2: Natural Law ≠ The Law of Christ
There is a distinction between the laws that Scripture assumes should govern the church and the laws that should govern a nation. In 1 Corinthians 5 Paul commands us:
“I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.” (1 Cor 5:9-13).
Notice, Paul assumes that there is a moral accountability applied to Christians that is not applied to those of this world. We do not expect unregenerate people to behave like they are regenerate; we do not exercise the keys of the kingdom on those who are not members of the kingdom. Therefore, Christians should not attempt to take the “law of Christ” (Gal 6:2), which requires the Holy Spirit to obey, and then attempt to codify that into law. More specifically, we cannot require non-Christians to pray, to love their enemies, to love God, to forgive one another, to tithe, or to obey the Sabbath.
And yet, Paul also assumes that there is a natural law in the conscience of mankind that testifies to certain moral realities (see Romans 2:14-15). We are image bearers and so we have a certain moral compass that tells us that murder is wrong, cowardice is shameful, families are precious, and that lying should be punished. You don’t need to be regenerate to affirm these things–the conscience of fallen mankind attests to them. Still, the sinner can sear their conscience and perform “shameful deeds contrary to nature” as Paul explains with the example of homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27. So, even though their conscience bears witness to them that this is wrong, the sinner has so silenced their conscience that they now have a “debased mind” and “do what ought not be done,” (Rom 1:28). Yet, that does not make the Law of Nature defunct. Sinful man may plunge himself into all sorts of sin, but he “ought not” to.
So, for example, just because our non-Christian neighbor may disagree with us that marriage is between one-man and one-woman, we can still insist that our government should not honor same-sex marriage as a legitimate marriage. This isn’t Christians imposing the Law of Christ on non-Christians. It is an appeal to the basic Law of Nature that stands over Christians and non-Christians equally. Marriage is not reserved only for Christians, you do not need the Holy Spirit to be married; it is a common grace God bestows on all people. If we were asked why we thought marriage was between one-man and one-woman, we may point to social studies, history, and tradition, but we would also assert that God is the one who created marriage and that He gets to decide what it is, not us.
In the same way, just because the sixth commandment tells us that murder is wrong, it doesn’t mean we are imposing “Christian morality” illegitimately by advocating that murder should be outlawed. We would say that there are many reasons why murder should be outlawed–but supreme among them would be that God has forbidden it (Gen 9:5-6).
In Closing
If someone’s vision is that we ought to govern the State the way we govern the Church (with the Law of Christ), or their missions are basically the same–if that is someone’s definition of “Christian nationalism”, then I could not more strongly reject it. But if someone’s vision is that Christians should only rely on secular arguments or a moral consensus when it comes to legislation, civic norms, etc., then I would strongly disagree with that. Since every law, policy, or norm is based on some moral estimation–from your public library’s late-fee policy to the federal government’s platform–we must turn to the only standard of morality: God’s.
In my next email, I will focus on how our love of neighbor should influence us as individuals politically and civically, the distinction between the mission of the institution of the Church and the individual Christian, and the role that persuasion and voluntary acceptance play in a Christian’s mission.
One thought on “The Church, Christian Nationalism, and Civic Engagement”