The First Proof in a Series Arguing for Christian Nations
(1) All moral entities ought to acknowledge the true God in word and deed.
(2) Nations are moral entities.
Therefore, (3) nations ought to acknowledge the true God in word and deed.
(4) The true God is the Triune God.
Therefore, (5) nations ought to acknowledge the Triune God in word and deed.
All moral entities ought to acknowledge the true God in word and deed.
Key here is understanding the nature of all moral entities. Moral entities are required to do good and not to do evil. Creation is largely composed of non-moral entities, which is not to say that they are bad, only that they cannot choose between good and evil. Rocks have no such choice; and non-rational animals (e.g., bears), while having volition, do not have moral choice. Moral entities can acknowledge good and evil and choose between them.
Man is under a moral law, which is the rule or standard of his right acting or righteousness. This law is natural to him in that it is engraved on his heart, is suitable and fitting for the sort of being he is, and is the rule to his natural end, namely his happiness. But even though man’s moral law is natural to him, the law is essentially command. Man’s nature demonstrates to him what is good and evil, but the oughtness (or the precept of natural law) comes from the free will of God himself—the One who Commands. In other words, the natural law is both demonstrative and preceptive. This both/and, middle-ground rejects the famous claim of Hugo Grotius—that natural law is binding even if God does not exist—and the Occamist position that the natural law is nothing but divine command. The middle position is that of Thomas Aquinas, Fransisco Suarez, Francis Turretin, and (to my knowledge) most Reformed orthodox theologians (before knowledge of the question was seemingly lost among Protestants)1.
The important point is this: even though the natural law says what is good and evil—and even though its goodness flows from God’s moral nature, is discoverable in principle by natural reason, and is suitable to the natural constitution of man—the natural law still flows from the command of God exercising his free will toward his creatures. Natural law is command. The oughtness of natural law is found in divine command.
The natural law being divine command, all moral entities (being under that law) are under commands issued by the Commander. Thus, all moral entities must acknowledge the will behind the moral precepts, which is nothing but the acknowledgment of God himself. An atheistical world might have moral council, but it does not contain moral obligation. This is precisely why John Locke, for example, while promoting maximal religious liberty, called for magistrates to suppress atheism: “Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all.”2
The acknowledgement of the true God—being the Supreme Being—must exceed mere affirmation of his existence. It must lead one to beseech, give obeisance, recognize dependence, and act in light of his purposes from the world. This is not the mere “god of the philosophers” or the god of the deists, but the King of the universe.
Put simply, since all moral entities are under moral obligation, they ought to acknowledge God in word and deed, because moral obligation itself comes only from God’s will.
Nations are moral entities.
Nations are entities, because they can form political communities. All legitimate political communities are formed by consent—consent being a collective expression of an entity. Thus, if nations can express consent, they must be (collective) entities. It follows that nations have a collective personhood—they are moral persons—and therefore act morally as singular entities.
Furthermore, since the members of civil societies are bound by majoritarian decision (unless grossly unjust or tyrannical), the members are bound together as a whole. Thus, a nation as a civil society is a collective entity, for majoritarian decisions (e.g., laws passed by majority vote in a legitimate legislature) bind all persons, even the dissenting minority.
They are moral entities for several reasons. First, to speak of nations as “barbarous” assumes that the nation as such has a moral standard. Second, the nation institutes civil government for its good. The state must act for the good of the community, and it can act for evil. This presumes that the nation as nation is under a standard of goodness for which the government acts to bring about, sustain, or facilitate. Third, civil law itself must be derived from the moral law to bind citizens to obligation. Otherwise, it is no law at all. Thus, nations are under the moral law. Lastly, God regularly judges and condemns nations as nations for their acts of evil, even heathen nations (Ps. 110:6). If nations can be condemned for moral failure, then they are under a moral standard, namely moral law.
We can conclude, then, that nations are moral entities.
It follows (from the valid syllogism above) that nations ought to acknowledge God in word and deed. Nations are not human persons; they differ in species of moral entity. Yet they are moral persons, and so God wills nations to act morally.
While nations have international moral obligations, I focus here their acting for themselves. They act for themselves in two ways: law and custom. They enact law mediately through civil government. Laws are explicit and outwardly promulgated by legitimate authorities who enforce them through civil command and sanction. Customs (differing from law as species of ordering) are a sort of implicit authority, operating above the people in a way as “social facts,” to use Émile Durkheim’s terminology, and enforced socially. Thus, God’s will for nations is to act through law and custom for the good of the nation, and these acts ought to flow from acknowledgement of God.
The true God is the Triune God.
Now, we might conclude that nations ought to acknowledge the Triune God in word and deed, because the true God is the Triune God. I admit that this may not appear to be not solid proof, because the true God is also the God of creation. One might conclude that nations simply must acknowledge God as Creator. But while we should distinguish God as Creator and God as Redeemer (as Calvin did)3, we cannot separate. For contained in God as Creator is the will for eternal life (since Adam was promised eternal life for obedience)4, though the former means to the end (the covenant of works) is no longer attainable. Hence, God as Redeemer, revealing himself in the person and work of Christ, is now the only means to that original will of God as Creator. The will of God as Creator is attained through God as Redeemer. So, we distinguish but not separate. It follows that if nations ought to orient man to his original, heavenly end—namely eternal life— per the will of God as Creator, then they ought to orient man to the proper means to it, namely Christ. To prove the antecedent: Nations ought to orient man to his heavenly end, because the nation acting as such is a means to loving one’s neighbor; and what is greater love of neighbor than pointing people to their highest good?
Conclusion
I conclude, therefore, that the Christian nation—being a nation that in the totality of its acting orients its members to eternal life in Christ—is not only possible but true, good, and beautiful. It is the nation perfected in form.
Image Credit: Unsplash
What we argue from deductions becomes problematic when it can be challenged by induction. And there are three challenges that induction brings here. First, there is no such promotion for Christian Nationalism in the New Testament. Instead, there is an implied acceptance and expectation of a pagan or secular nation in which Christians live. Second, Church history not only does not confirm his conclusion, but strongly contradicts it. Finally, I will add a quote from James Boice which not only challenges a monastic approach towards government and society by some in the Church, it also challenges Christian Nationalism because of the similarities in the grounds for both..
Since I have provided the New Testament challenges to Christian Nationalism at other times, I will not repeat them. The same goes for the challenges presented by Church history. Boice’s quote that can be used to challenge Christian Nationalism is below:
‘First, it overestimates the godliness of the godly. The righteous are not as free of the world’s evil as they suppose. Second, it underestimates the value of this world’s culture and government, since there is such a thing called common grace, since there is such a thing called common grace by which even rank unbelievers are able to create objects of beauty, launch worthwhile social projects, and perform secular responsibilities with integrity and skill.‘
Here is another problem with Wolfe’s argument besides what already has been stated. He calls himself a Christian political theorist, and that is probably true. But the above argument is without any reference to the Scriptures and has no support from the New Testament. And so that above argument fails to be a Christian argument for Christian Nationalism. In addition, the first part of the premise begs the question of his definition of the moral obligations that would compel any nation to obey..
Curt, I interact with you, not because I hope to change your mind, but because you help me understand how many American Christians think. (I do not live in America)
American Christians seem to be fixated on chapter and verse reasoning – demanding a verse that directly states your position. Two dangers with this approach: chapters and verses were not in the original manuscripts of most books in the Bible; (2) sometimes, the teaching of Scripture is so obvious that no Scripture reference is needed – it is taught EVERYWHERE.
The proposition that all moral entities should obey God is everywhere: just search for the phrase “Fear God”, “Obey God” Fear Him, Obey Him, etc.
It’s also taught by the light of nature. All Muslims would agree that nations should Fear God and obey Him. Most Christians in Africa would agree.
You have argued that Government- sanctioned slavery, codified in law by lawfully elected representatives of the nation, is sinful. A government of the people, by the people and for the people has sinned, you say. Therefore slavery was a national sin.
Most American blacks go a step further, arguing that America should repent of its national sin by taxing its people to give reparations to blacks.
You are hereby assuming that nations are moral entities, capable of sinning against God or obeying Him.
Joshua,
I fully agree that there is a danger in the chapter and verse approach some take. However, the danger mostly lies in not adjusting how we apply the Scriptures to the different contexts from which they were written. Here I would recommend Martin Luther King’s approach to Romans 13 as a positive way to use the Scriptures to a modern issue.
However, I am not just arguing that the New Testament does not provide positive support for Christian Nationalism, it argues against it in a number of ways. It argues against it in the Greek word for the Church. It implies the opposite when talking about Church discipline. It argues against it in how we are to relate to unbelievers. It argues against it when it talks about our place in an unbelieving world. And it argues against it in the lives and examples provided by the Apostles.
On the one hand, we don’t want to be chapter and verse people. On the other hand, we need to use the Scriptures as the canon for our beliefs and actions. Deductive arguments that are not supported by the Scriptures should be questioned and further examined. Deductive arguments that are challenged by Church history also need to be examined.
Please note that I used Church history as providing evidence that should challenge Christian Nationalism. I also used a quote from James Boice to do the same. And so my challenge to Wolfe’s article was not one-dimensional.
But to your final point, again you fail to make it. For your final point deals not with how we sin by not recognizing God, but by how we treat each other. In addition in all that I have said against Christian Nationalism, you should see that the moral standards that God puts on nations today is not identical to the standards that He puts on the Church and in our evangelism when we call people to repent. Why? Because God’s people are not defined by national identity. And even in the Old Testament, the nations were not judged by how they kept the covenant that God made with Israel, they were judged by how they treated their own people, people from other nations, and how they treated Israel.
https://reparationscomm.org/reparations-news/martin-luther-kings-case-for-reparations-still-rings-true/
Here is an article that argues for reparations on the basis that the American nation a moral entity. The federal government, supported by the American people, have committed national sin by oppressing blacks. The NATION has a moral obligation to pass a act, through its national legislature, to give money to African Americans.
African Americans would agree with Stephen Wolfe here.
If nations are moral entities, they are capable of obeying or defying the first Table of the law. They are also capable of being either for Christ or against Christ. They cannot be neutral. No, being for Christ does not mean the State becomes identified with the Church. Their origin, aims, and powers are distinct, and that’s why it is possible for them to assist each other. A powerful moral entity may profess to be neutral, but Christ says it is already against Him.
Even the Israelite theocracy, for much of its history, did a better job than America today in keeping church and state confined to their respective spheres. In Israel, if the king attempted to offer incense in the temple, he was thrown out. But in the USA you regularly see presidential candidates (male and female) being welcomed into pulpits! And then you see ministers like Reverend Raphael Warnock leaving their pulpits to go into the Senate! (FYI – in some of the established Churches of Europe, he would have been deposed for taking political office.).
Nations in the OT were not just judged for wronging each other (2nd Table), but for idolatry, pride, and blasphemy (1st Table). See Isaiah 14:12-14, Jer. 50.29. Nebuchadness and Belshazzar were both punished for their pride. In Belshazzar’s case, he was punished for his pride against the Lord of heaven (Dan. 5:23). In their punishment, the whole empire was punished. This was just, because their pride reflected the attitude of the nation in general.
Nations are bound to obey both tables of the moral law. It’s impossible to limit obedience to one Table. Scripture does not even specify which commandments are on the first table, and which are on the second. The silence is significant – we are forbidden to draw a sharp distinction between the tables. They are inseparable – you can’t obey one and not the other.
Gallio is commended by many Americans for his complete indifference to religious matters (1st Table), but look what followed: complete indifference to the violent and lawless beating of Sosthenes. Similarly, if a nation protects open and avowed hatred of the true God, then the nation will hate the people He made, until the nation’s soil is soaked with the blood of millions.
Joshua,
There are problems with your post. First, you assume that your implication is true in lieu of showing it.
Second, you are not using the Scriptures to show your claim to be true.
Third, your claim contradicts what Paul says about the law. The law shows us our sin. We can only be in Christ if God has elected us and draws us to Him–that comes from John 6, Romans 9, and Ephesians 2. And so we can’t do anything to force people to have faith in Christ. If individuals cannot come to Christ unless the Father draws them, how can whole nations do the same?
Fourth, God’s election is not based on anything we have done, do, could do, or will do. That is demonstrated by Romans 9 and God’s choosing of Israel in the Old Testament.
Fourth, the New Testament shows that there are different moral standards to follow here. There is one for society and there is one for the Church. I showed that in a previous comment.
Joshua,
Finally, again, the nations were not judged for breaking the covenant that God made with Israel. But also note that even Israel didn’t keep the covenant that God made with them. The arrogance spoken against in those passages led to their abusing of Israel. Just as in Amos when nations are judged, they are judged according to how they treated others.
You seem not to understand the transition that took place between the Old and New Testaments. God’s people are no longer identified as being nations and no nation can make itself God’s people. That is because God’s people are identified by their faith in Christ. And again, no one is able to come to faith in Christ unless God has elected them. To the Reformers, to believe otherwise is to go, in whatever degree, in the direction of Pelagius.