Who Knows About Christian Nationalism?
Maybe not as many as you think
By Brad Isbell
I recently wrote (re-posted below) about why I oppose a PCA study committee on Christian Nationalism. One of my reasons was:
PCA elders will be hard-pressed to vote to study an issue that is absent from their radar screens. CN is not a hot topic for most PCA elders—it is almost an entirely online (Twitter/X) movement with negligible real-world impact. Unless things change rapidly in the next several months, many in the PCA will greet the call to study CN with a confused dog look and move on. CN has often been likened to cosplay. Few will take notice until people start wearing their costumes on Sunday and bring their plastic swords to church.
Stats and research man Ryan Burge’s latest seems to confirm my contention that CN is not as big a deal as many very-online people think it is. Among his findings:
“..the current discussion about Christian Nationalism has been largely ignored (or rejected) by those on the right side of the political spectrum, while the Left has consumed anything that they can get their hands on when it comes to the dangers of Christian Nationalism.”
Read his whole piece: “Who Hasn't Heard About Christian Nationalism?”
My piece from 7/12/2024 is below (in full). And what I implied in the first sentence below has come to pass: A PCA presbytery has approved such an overture though it has not yet been publicly posted.
IT IS NEARLY CERTAIN that one or more presbyteries will overture the PCA General Assembly to approve a study committee on Christian Nationalism next year. Though good men will back the effort, I am convinced it’s a bad idea for a few reasons.
First, Christian Nationalism is almost impossible to define. It is not one thing...maybe not even a thing. On the pro-CN side, one could point to three different (very) recently published books, a would-be media empire of questionable provenance, hundreds of online accounts (ranging from semi-respectable to bat-you-know-what crazy to shockingly nefarious), and a bushel of blog posts in search of a unitary definition. You would fail. Is it a-mil or post-mil? Is it establishmentarian or not? Is it some form of “two-kingdom” or not? Is it theonomic or not? Does it believe the US Constitution is a failed document? Do we “need a Protestant Franco”? You will not derive an answer from the available data, even from the “pro” sources. Or is it merely a mood? And how do you study a mood?
On the anti-CN side, you’ll find similar confusion. Non-Christian or progressive Christian sources will call everything to their expansive right Christian Nationalism. They will equate it with the Republican Party. They willingly or ignorantly miss all distinctions between Christian Reconstructionists, Dominionists, crazy charismatic megachurch/Christian media platform prosperity gospelers, Wilsonites, semi-respectable Reformed, antidisestablishmentarian would-be Covenanters, musty theonomists, crusty culture warriors, he-man beardos, sleazy anti-Semites, fascist fanboys, Romanist integralists, and folkish America-first, take-our-country-back baptist-evangelical versions (which have always existed). They’ll lump nearly all Christian conservatives of any kind under the unhelpful CN banner.
The pro-side is slippery; the anti-side can be sloppy and careless. Christian Nationalism cannot presently be defined. On top of all that, it is changing rapidly, and the guaranteed political sturm und drang of 2024 and 2025 will accelerate the changes. CN will split, morph, rise, fall, blur, and blunder.1 It is nearly impossible to study something so indefinable.
Second, PCA elders will be hard-pressed to vote to study an issue that is absent from their radar screens. CN is not a hot topic for most PCA elders—it is almost an entirely online (Twitter/X) movement with negligible real-world impact. Unless things change rapidly in the next several months, many in the PCA will greet the call to study CN with a confused dog look and move on. CN has often been likened to cosplay. Few will take notice until people start wearing their costumes on Sunday and bring their plastic swords to church.
Third, (and related to the preceding reason) CN is not a big problem in the PCA.2 Though the PCA is 10x larger than many of its NAPARC cousins, it seems to have no more total CN sympathizers than some much smaller denominations—if social media activity is any guide. Few in the PCA openly support any version (and there are many versions - see above) of CN. A sub-point: a PCA study committee would give CN needless validation and publicity. Most CN figures (who did not have the advantage of pre-existing platforms) have relatively small followings.3 A PCA study committee would result primarily in a cacophony of echo-chamber crowing by CN adherents.
Fourth, CN is unavoidably political, and political topics have proven to be unpopular recently in the PCA.4 Witness the fate of calls for a “White Supremacy” study committee5 an overture to “Repudiate Anti-Asian Racism”6 in 2021, and a request for a “Statement On Political Violence”7 in 2022.
For these four reasons (and probably more) a call for a PCA study committee on CN is very unlikely to be approved. But here’s a tip (from someone troubled by many aspects of what passes for Christian Nationalism)—the WHEREAS clauses in any such proposed overture will be much more important than usual. Some things need lots of selling and explanation. This topic is one of them. The PCA will not buy a pig (or a study committee) in a poke.
Another piece of advice: The need for such a study committee might be more obvious later this year or early next year (for obvious political reasons). This is not the time to write such an overture. Those rightly concerned about CN should keep their powder dry…for the moment.
BONUS POINT: Study committee fatigue in the PCA is real. A committee to study and revise the PCA directory of worship (intending to constitutionalize all or part of it) stands a far better chance of passing. And if the PCA GA ever votes for another study committee it will not approve more than one per year…probably only one every few years at most. It usually takes years for the “need” for a study committee to be widely felt. The CN issue is not there yet.
Events of the last week have exposed some cracks. Doug Wilson appeared with baptist Al Mohler and Jewish author Yoram Hazony at NatCon and some CN guys nearly had a crisis!
Some will aver that CN-attracted church members are causing problems in some areas. That may be, but the problem is not widespread.
Only Doug Wilson (the Metropolitan of Moscow), and Andrew Torba (who owns Gab) have large social media followings. CN is furiously loud but signifies very little.
Some might point to the humble petition to the US government re: sex change procedures for minors which the last two GAs endorsed. This was a creation-level “case extraordinary” which was only incidentally political because one party has made the trans issue one of their non-negotiables.
This was brief and helpful.
There is a brutal firestorm raging from the left, yet some want to scream about a campfire set in Moscow.
It amazes me how many knowledgeable, highly trained believers can't wrap their mind around the fact that Jesus really meant it when He told us to make disciples of all nations and to teach them to observe all that I have commanded us. And that He will be with us always to ensure that we succeed in these tasks. Instead, they use Christian nationalism as an epithet to dismiss or treat with contempt those who fully lean into the Great Commission.