No Christian Nation, No Christian Family

To Deny the Power of One is to Deny the Power of Either

I. Introduction

Some critics of Christian nationalism claim that earthly nations cannot be Christian. I addressed one part of this objection already. In this article, I show that denying the conceptual possibility of the Christian nation—that is, denying that “Christian” can be coherently ascribed to “nation”—typically requires one to deny the conceptual possibility of the Christian family.[1. By “conceptual”, I mean what is inherent to the idea or thing itself.]

The nation and the family are distinct types of entities, but they share certain features. For example, familial power and national power[2. “National power” includes both social and civil power. Social power is (put simply) cultural and implicit in society (e.g., subtle social expectations), and civil power is official, governmental, and explicit.] (i.e., the powers to order and regulate families and nations) are species of earthly power, not spiritual or heavenly power. Thus, they share in whatever is generically ascribed to earthly power. If we limit national power by appealing to the nature of earthly power, we in effect limit familial power. 

In my experience, arguments against the Christian nation as a concept are partial syllogisms (or enthymemes) leaving unstated the major premise. So, for example, when one concludes that national power cannot render an entity Christian, stating that national power is not spiritual but earthly, he assumes an unstated major premise, namely, no earthly power can render an entity (e.g., a nation) Christian. Formally stated, the syllogism is:

Now, I would deny the major premise[3. Earthly power can order outward things to spiritual ends, though earthly power cannot itself produce a spiritual effect.], but that is not the point here. The point is: the major premise, once supposed, can serve as a major premise for any number of valid syllogisms, including ones that concern the Christian family:

This argument relies on a major premise that applies just as well to families, because the middle term (in this case, earthly powers) can be predicated on both the nation and the family without equivocation. As we see below, many if not most objections to the idea of the Christian nation strike equally against the idea of the Christian family. But before getting into objections, we must discuss what I mean by “Christian family” and “Christian nation.” 

II. Christian Nation and Christian Family 

The nation and the family are fundamentally human institutions, and they order and arrange themselves according to natural principles. The power proper to each sphere is earthly, granted to each by God as Creator. Each power directs the outward man, or simply the body as opposed to the soul. Neither is a spiritual power, as found in the instituted church. That is to say, civil and familial powers do not wield the spiritual sword, touching the soul. Furthermore, both are involuntary entities, e.g., children are members of a family by accident of nature, not by choice. Most importantly, both are collective entities, not merely a collection of individuals. So, we can speak meaningfully of the “Wolfe family” and have more in view than the six individual members of it. What we do is not a sum of what each one of us individually does. 

Now, Christian nations and families are foundationally the same as generic nations and families, as described above. However, the “Christian” adjective means that the entity, whether nation or family, is ordered to heavenly things. The way of life is fused with Christian practices. Thus, the familial power is used to bring family members together for family worship, catechesis, Christian forgiveness, and prayer. It is also wielded to protect the family (even its youngest members) from impious, blasphemous, and heretical influences. Ascribing Christian to family speaks not of the spiritual state of individuals in a family, nor to the redemption or salvation of a collective entity. Rather, the Christian family is a family with a Christian way of life—enacted by familial power, performed as a family, and oriented to what is above nature. 

Likewise, the Christian nation is not an immanentized eschaton or heaven pulled down to earth. Nor is it the conflation or confounding of the kingdoms of God and of this world. It is a nation whose way of life is Christian, having been ordered to the highest good—to the heavenly kingdom of God. The national way of life is fused with Christian practices. As with familial power, civil power in a Christian nation cannot command anyone to true faith, but it maintains the best outward conditions for persuasion to that end. 

I must emphasize that we are dealing with collective entities, not mere groups of individuals. A Christian family is a collective ordering not as a kind of small group or “community group” (i.e., people who voluntarily do Christian things) but as a family. The family life itself is Christian. It is not a group of believers utilizing their proximity for Christian practices. 

III. Opposing the Christian Nation

Now that we see the overlap between the Christian nation and the Christian family, we can proceed to the common objections against the Christian nation and consider how those objections might affect the Christian family.

Earthly power cannot change hearts; only the Spirit can do that.

Citing earthly power’s limitations vis-à-vis the soul is the most common objection to the Christian nation. People will claim, on this basis, that civil power (or civil institutions) should neither promote true religion, nor restrain false religion; and, more generally, they claim that a Christian public order—where Christianity is culturally and legally normal—is a coercive order, violating the sacred rights of conscience. But if these claims follow from the supposition[4. They do not follow. See The Case for Christian Nationalism, Ch. 9.], earthly power cannot change hearts, then it strikes not only against the Christian nation but also the Christian family. The Christian family–an institution of nature, not grace–therefore, violates the sacred rights of conscience.

In a Christian family, familial authority is used to enact Christian practices such as requiring by earthly (or natural) authority that children participate in family worship, listen attentively to the reading of the Word, pray, memorize the catechism and scripture, sing hymns, observe the Sabbath, or attend public worship. But if the family cannot violate the rights of conscience (per the rationale above), then no power inherent to the family can be wielded to require participation. Nor may parents as parents correct any bad attitudes, reluctance, or negativity towards these practices. Indeed, parents must only invite their children to participate. 

Moreover, if civil government may not use civil power to suppress blasphemy, atheism, paganism, and heresy, because earthly power cannot change hearts, then using familial power to suppress such things is also impermissible. Families cannot establish safeguards against spiritually harmful influence, which might include errant older children or extended family members, television shows, movies, books, etc. If the civil magistrate cannot silence the anti-Christ, then neither can the parent as parent silence the anti-Christian sibling, cousin, or uncle. Indeed, familial power cannot be wielded to protect the souls of anyone in the home. The outspoken heretical or atheistic uncle cannot be denied admittance, nor have conditions of hospitality laid upon him. Nor can the parent use power as a parent (again, an earthly power) to prevent younger children from reading or viewing explicit paganist, atheistic (e.g., evolutionist) material. Doing so is using earthly power for a spiritual end—an end denied to earthly power and institutions. 

At best, parents must allow their children to consume soul-harming material and then verbally present their case against it, though parents cannot compel their child to listen to their refutation. Using familial power to instruct and protect souls entails that earthly powers may order earthly entities to spiritual good.[5. The classical Protestant position on civil law vis-à-vis religion is that it seeks the best outward conditions conducive to spiritual good—both regarding conversion and in aiding people outwardly in their pilgrimage to heaven. Civil law cannot convert heart, nor compel belief, but it can aid in spiritual life. Likewise, at least classically, familial power may enact rules for the family by the same principle and for the same end—to order the whole to spiritual good.]

Only individuals can be Christian

Owen Strachan recently wrote, “Nations can’t be Christian. Nations can be profoundly influenced by Christianity, but only people—sinners—can become Christian.” At best, Strachen is opposing the position that nations as such are direct objects of redemption. I would join him in rejecting this. Christ did not die for nations in the same way that he died for individuals. Nevertheless, Strachan still affirms that only individuals can be Christian, which has certain logical consequences. If individuals alone can be Christian, then no collective entity can be Christian. But the family as a family is a collective entity. Thus, neither the nation nor the family can be Christian. Individuals in families can be Christian but the family as family cannot be Christian.[6. The reply to this argument is straightforward: non-redemptive things can conduce to, support, or be oriented toward redemptive things; the temporal, secular, earthly can point to the eternal, sacred, and heavenly without anything being conflated or confounded.] 

Relatedly, people often say that “nothing outside the kingdom of redemption can be Christian.” We can speak of Christian individuals and Christian churches but not of Christian nations, so they claim. The earthly nation is a non-redemptive entity. But so too is the family and therefore it cannot be Christian. 

Outward conditions are irrelevant to inward conversion

One often hears the claim that since Christian civil culture, Christian laws, and Christian heritage are merely outward, they cannot convert the soul, which is a work for the Spirit. Civil culture, laws, and heritage are irrelevant with regard to converting souls. For this reason (so the claim goes), they should not be pursued. 

This argument, in my view, does not logically follow, but the point for our purposes is that it equally strikes against the Christian family. The Christian family as such is also an outward ordering—a culture with rules enacted by familial power. If the ordering of nations regarding religion has no relevance to conversion, then neither does the ordering of families. Both are outward and earthly. The work of parents, for example, in establishing a Christian home using parental authority for the spiritual instruction and spiritual protection of their children is irrelevant to the conversion of their children (so it would seem to follow). If the Christian nation is irrelevant to spiritual life, then so too is the Christian family. 

It only makes hypocrites

A Christian nation has a national way of life fused with Christian practices. Many claim that ostensibly “Christian” nations do little but create “nominal” Christians, since people merely conform to outward practices, even deluding themselves into thinking that they are true Christians. The outward ordering is counterproductive, since the will to conform tricks people into thinking they are believers. The Christian nation (they conclude) not only fails to orient people to true religion; it generates only nominal Christians bound straight for hell. 

But if outward conformity in this way has no other effect, then the same is true of Christian families. The Christian family claims that we—as a collective entity—are Christian and arrange ourselves outwardly in light of that fact. If the Christian nation must be discarded because such arrangements produce hypocrites, then the Christian family is to be discarded as well. If the outward Christian practices of nations make people “comfortable” in their nominal Christianity, then the practices of Christian practices of families do as well. 

Again, the Christian family is a family whose outward way of life is Christian. If demands for outward conformity produce only fake Christians, then we must also reject the Christian family.

III. Conclusion

We can see then that at least some and, in my experience most, objections leveled against the idea of the Christian nation assume premises that strike just as effectively against the idea of the Christian family[7. I offered arguments for Christian nations in this essay.]. The anti-Christian nationalist can certainly follow the logic and deny the coherence of the “Christian family” if he wants. 

But I suspect that most Christians want to use their God-granted power in families to order the family to the things of God. Most parents want to limit their child’s exposure to atheism, paganism, blasphemy, and heresy, and they will use their power to say “no” to certain media, friendships, and activities to these ends. Most want to use their parental power to establish the best possible outward conditions for conversion and to aid in the believer’s pilgrimage. Most want this natural thing called the “family” to be Christian—to have a Christian way of life. But if you want all this, then many objections to the idea of the Christian nation are eliminated. Indeed, if you want all this for your family, you should want the same for your nation.[8. The only argument that could coherently deny the Christian nation but affirm the Christian family is one that appeals to adventitious divine commands “authorizing” the latter but not the former. That is, family power is augmented by divine fiat to pursue spiritual ends, which is unauthorized by nature, while national powers must remain oblivious and unordered to higher ends. There is prima facie validity to this, though it is unsound in my view. Even if the Christian family is divinely authorized, the power of family is still in itself earthly, unless rendered a type of spiritual power akin to that found in the church (which is strange). If it remains earthly, it still retains the same natural limitations as civil power, even if it is authorized to render the family Christian.]

---

Image Credit: Unsplash