I find nothing to disagree with in your post and have argued this position here at DRC and will continue to do so. Nations are moral persons. Christ rules.

I do not understand National Confessionalism to be the same as the RPCNA Testimony’s position but the 20th Century name for what is essentially the Christian Amendment movement. No real good ever came out of this movement. It was essentially the lobbying arm of the RPCNA (and I am flatly opposed to churches being involved in political lobbying even through back door operations like the NRA (National Reform Association) or the CAM (Christian Amendment Movement). The National Confessional position was argued for in the 1986 God and Politics discussion at Geneva College and published by P&R. Bill Edgar gave a credible stab and I find nothing objectionable in his position.

The problem with the position is that it has always simply aped the Scottish Covenants (National and Solemn League) which were political disasters. It gave an ideological edge to the Covenanter’s Whiggish politics that I am supremely uncomfortable adopting as my own.

I prefer to defend Anglo-American Christendom, warts and all, as an improvement on what came before and worthy of being preserved against what may follow. My objections are not to anything that can be proved or even sited in Scripture but how these things are applied.

The odd thing is that although I am with the National Confessionalist’s every step of the way on Scripture, when it comes to application and policy I am almost always in agreement with the Darryl Hart’s and David VanDrunens. That is the problem with application, isn’t it. It almost always goes beyond the Scriptures themselves and incorporates a lot of precommitments and philosophical assumptions.

I realize that you had your tongue firmly planted in your cheek in your reply–and I appreciate the humor. But just for the record, you don’t really think the NC position is that “nations are only Christian nations if they have thus stated in the preamble of their written Constitutions,” right? The position up for debate is, of course, summarized in the RPCNA Testimony 23.1-31, right? And if you wish, you could help me further by noting the part(s) you’ve actually “talked yourself out of,” and would allow me to try to talk you back into.

Perhaps I could just begin by offering Scriptural support that heathen nations did and should confess subjection to our God? And then we can proceed to debate whether “every nation ought to recognize the Divine institution of civil government, the sovereignty of God exercised by Jesus Christ, and its duty to rule the civil affairs of men in accordance with the will of God” (23.4).

And as I said, I would much rather discuss the word of God than the word of people like Fisher Ames. But maybe your quote is getting to the root of your actual objection. Are you really, in fact, arguing that a nation’s rulers do not truly serve the Lord and kiss the Son (Ps 2:12) if they ONLY confess it but do not ACTUALLY practice it according to the Scriptures? I certainly will not debate that!

Aren’t you really objecting that the “cities in the land of Egypt” might indeed “swear by the LORD of hosts”–as they ought to!–but then not truly fulfill (Isa 19:18)? Hence the real national confessional position is that “a true recognition of the authority and law of Christ in national life can only be the fruit of the Spirit’s regenerating power in the lives of individuals” (RPT 23.2, see whole chapter).

Perhaps the argument should turn on whether it WAS right for kings officially to confess both personally (Dan 4), and nationally (Dan 6), and even to exhort their whole nation to bow before the Lord (Jonah 3)? Were they not required to GIVE glory to to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Dan 5:18-23, Isa 10:15, Acts 12:22-23), and not simply obey Him? Mustn’t the nation obey the first and second commandments, depart from heathenism and idolatry (wow, where to start here among almost all the prophets, but take Dan 5 again, Amos 5:26, Isa 2:17ff, 19, Jer 46 esp v. 25, 50:2,38, Rev 18:3, etc), but rather bow before the King of kings (Isa 49:7, 52:15, 60:3, Ps 72:10-11, Rev 21:24)?

I hope we can both agree that not only must the national tongue confess, but the national knee must actually bow–because no matter what is officially done in the past, what is actually done in the present is essential for nations to avoid the superscription of the divine judge: “MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.” Jer 18:7-10!

– David

“I make a decree that in every dominion of my kingdom men must tremble and fear before the God of Daniel. For He is the living God, And steadfast forever; His kingdom is the one which shall not be destroyed, And His dominion shall endure to the end.”

Doctrines which are foundational to the position and which are the most trivial to establish according to Scripture, such as the corporate judgment of heathen nations (e.g. deregnochristi.org/2007/04/07), have been challenged and left completely undefended by God’s word. Speaking as an outsider, the national confessional position will never be reached unless the “steps” leading up to it are established and firm. Instead, more people can be expected to abandon it.

Therefore, allow me to propose that at least the posts which begin these important discussions could offer some Biblical basis for the doctrines proposed for discussion, and then the subsequent comments may follow with more holy light. Hopefully, the whole site could become a persuasive apology not only to outsiders like myself who more recently found it, but even to its leading contributors.

I hold the leading contributors to the blog in the highest honor, and I do not think my name is even worthy to follow the name of “D Hart” on this post. You men are much, much more capable students of the Scriptures and the ones who should rightly debate these issues. I only hope that the perspective of an outside reader and a minister of the gospel will be helpful to you and to the glory of the King.

My conception of Christendom is deeply Protestant, staunchly two kingdom, and uniquely Anglo-American. I view America as more of a tradition than an experiment. A tradition with deep roots in the ancient world, the medieval synthesis, the Anglo-Scottish Reformation and the Enlightenment. America is the West. Not a revolt against Christendom but a maturation (mixed with a bit of rebellion and innovation some of which worked well and some of it not so well).

It seems to me that the corpus of D.G. Hart fits well into this tradition. I think he is also a friend of this Christendom, no?

I understand what you mean about the seeds of the churches dissolution. I am afraid that the church in this age is always sowing seeds of its own dissolution and depending on Christ to provide renewal and blessing.

One problem is that Christendom is not self-defining. I suspect we agree on much even on this question. Still, I cannot help but cling to something so vital to the tradition of the West. What would we be conserving without it?

What in a nutshell is your “more convincing biblical theological justification” for traditionalism? It doesn’t sound like your theology has changed really. Just that the policy proposal of a constitutional amendment is no longer necessary.

I wish I could welcome you into the Truly Two K club, but I need further clarification.