But if we are absolutely no closer in 2026 to enacting anything resembling a Christian nationalist agenda, it is hard to see the conversation as little more than an unnecessary distraction at this point. Not that Christians engaging in politics is a distraction, but that theorizing about a would-be government that requires a return to 1789 conditions is futile. Right now, it only divides Christians on secondary and tertiary matters by ratcheting up the discourse. What’s worse, what follows in the rafters of Christian nationalism is, in some cases, a cesspool of resentment, nativism, and pugilism. Sure, everyday Christians want to end abortion, which fits within the remit of Christian nationalism. But are those same Christians really wanting to go back to a time when we punished blasphemy? Even benign proposals, like Sabbath laws, stand no chance of passage. No one, and I mean no one, is seriously questioning the First Amendment or the 19th Amendment, for that matter. Read more»
Andrew T. Walker | “Michael Scott’s Christian Nationalism” | World Magazine | September 23, 2026
RESOURCES
- Subscribe to The Heidelblog!
- Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
- Browse the Heidelshop!
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- The Heidelberg Catechism: A Historical, Theological, & Pastoral Commentary (Lexham Press, 2025)
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
- Why I Am A Christian
- What Must A Christian Believe?
- Heidelblog Contributors
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to
Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization
Heidelblog
The Heidelblog has been in publication since 2007. It is devoted to recovering the Reformed confession and to helping others discover Reformed theology, piety, and practice.
More by Heidelblog ›
I realize that after years of commenters trying to make the case for the “establishment principle” in the original Westminster Confession of Faith, I am unlikely to change the minds of any Heidelblog authors by making further arguments for it (here I am assuming that those who reject Christian nationalism, which has many different forms, also reject the establishment principle of the original Reformed Confessions).
But in the interests of safeguarding the truths that Heidelblog promotes, I would point out that of all the arguments against Christian Nationalism, this is one of the worst. Christian Nationalism should be rejected, because in 2026, there is no chance it will happen? We test the truthfulness of doctrine by asking whether we can foresee it happening or not?
Or, “Christian Nationalism is wrong because past attempts were a unsuccessful.” Really? The test for determining if something is true, is to see if it has been successfully implemented in the past?
The question is not, “Is it feasible?”, or “Has it ever been successfully done?” but, “Is it Scriptural?” The conclusion of reason and experience (not Scripture) is that a universal, bodily resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked is never going to happen. “How can scattered dust of countless millions be reconstructed to form the same bodies that existed before death? Nothing remotely like this has happened before. With the exception of the Lord Jesus Christ, a few people in the past were resurrected, but they died again (according to one interpretation – some think that those who were resurrected with Christ also ascended into heaven). Since we have no example of a permanent resurrection of many human beings at once, we shouldn’t expect a general resurrection.”
I agree that the establishment principle can be debated and discussed excessively, and people can get distracted from the most important truths: law and gospel, the new birth, making your calling and election sure, etc. But if we go wrong in our arguments for defending or rejecting Christian nationalism, we are going to err in defending other truths too, as well as lead others astray.
Th debate over Christian nationalism will keep going and probably intensify. Why? ‘Religiously neutral’ nations are being forced again and again to decide which forms of religious expression are legitimate and which are not. Examples include polygamy, child marriage, Sharia law, and supreme allegiance to a civil and and ecclesiastical foreign power (the papacy). False religions invariably claim freedom of religion to practice these things.
The reply will be, “Those examples are egregious violations of natural law – the civil magistrate must punish them.” But that’s the problem: all false religion violates natural law at some point.
Principle: As Kuyper said, establishment is unbiblical.
Practical: Try to establish a church and see what happens. Please read American history, especially the history of the American Revolution. The British tried to establish a church and we resisted by force.
It may be true that arguing about the politics of Christian Nationalists is a distraction, but arguing against their theology (or theologies) is essential. But politics, not theology, is driving the bus in the so-called Culture-war, so most Christians (nationalists or no) don’t care to talk about Justification. They’d much rather talk about Drag queens.
Christ said it plainly, “my kingdom is not of this world,” and “go and make disciples of ALL nations.” Preaching the gospel to ALL people is the only means the Word of God supports to further the cause of the kingdom of God. The idea that you can force people to adopt a certain brand of state mandated evangelical “Christian” religious practice is nothing tyranny which will produce stinking, rotten fruit. It’s stench will make the cause of all Christian religion suspect in the eyes of a world that desperately needs the good news of the Gospel. “By their fruit you will know them.” Mark 16:15