I really hate the tendency to redefine words for political purposes. Nationalism is a political, social, and cultural ideology that emphasizes the interests, culture, identity, and unity of a nation (a group of people sharing common language, history, traditions, ethnicity, values, or territory) above those of other nations or international bodies. Therefore Christian Nationalism is a political, social, and cultural ideology that emphasizes the interests, culture, identity, and unity of a nation—understood as a group of people sharing common language, history, traditions, ethnicity, values, or territory—with Christianity (or a particular expression of it) viewed as integral or foundational to that shared heritage and character. It prioritizes this national framework above those of other nations or international bodies. This is not a bad thing. It is not an undesirable viewpoint. It is what this country (the USA) was founded on and what the vast majority of the laws and standards of morality are dependent upon. Trying to change that ( like the left has been doing for a very long time ) weakens the foundation that this country is built on. This is a big reason why we have many the problems we see today. I am against racism as classically defined: Racism (classical definition) is the belief that humans can be divided into distinct biological "races," that inherited physical traits are linked to inherent differences in abilities, character, intellect, morality, or behavior, and that some races are superior or inferior to others. I am NOT against being proud of my cultural heritage and trying to maintain it. #Racisim #Nationalism #Nationalist #ChristianNationalism #ChristianNationalist #Ideology #Religion #Christian #Heritage #Culture #History #Honesty

I would also support that definition of Christian Nationalism. The problem is, that’s not necessarily the operating definition, even among self-proclaimed Christian Nationalists. There are also some within the church who would denounce even the idea that Christians should serve in political office, believing that since this world is not our home, we should not waste our time trying to “rearrange deckchairs on the Titanic.” They are content to let culture and civil government be exclusively in the hands of the world, and some even celebrate secularism, multiculturalism, and religious pluralism as a categorical good outside of the church. The fact is, there is more than enough disagreement about exactly what Christian Nationalism is, and what relationship the church should have with the state, to justify a study committee to study the issue in greater depth. And that’s all the OPC’s study committee will be doing: studying the issue and reporting their findings to the 94th GA in 2028. That assembly can receive the majority report, or the minority report if there is one, or neither report if they aren’t satisfied that the study committee handled the issue well. Even if the assembly accepts a report, it is only treated as “pious advice” and is not binding. It cannot serve as grounds in any ecclesiastical court. There will be no excommunications on the basis of the findings of a study committee report. That would require a change to our secondary standards. A report might be used as justification for proposing such an amendment, but that is an even longer and more difficult process. When it comes to racism, I think the statement that has been adopted by these various denominations is very close to what you provided as the classical definition. Here’s the statement as originally adopted by the ARP last year: “That the 221st General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church do on this solemn day condemn without distinction any theological or political teaching which posits a superiority of race or ethnic identity born of immutable human characteristics and does on this solemn evening call to repentance any who would promote or associate themselves with such teaching, either by commission or omission.” While I am not entirely happy with the wording of that statement, I think it more or less aligns with the classical definition of racism you outlined. When your classical definition mentions that racism holds that “humans can be divided into distinct biological ‘races’” with “inherited physical traits [that] are linked to inherent differences in abilities, character, intellect, morality, or behavior,” that is exactly what is meant by the statement’s language of “immutable human characteristics.” When your classical definition states that racism holds that “some races are superior or inferior to others,” that is exactly what is meant by the statement’s language concerning any “teaching which posits a superiority of race or ethnic identity.” I think both the statement adopted by the ARP, RPCNA, PCA, and OPC and your classical definition of racism leave room for a love of one’s own culture and heritage, and a recognition that cultures are not all created equal. We can also recognize that culture is not an “immutable human characteristic.” Just as Ruth forsook her Moabite culture saying, “For where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there will I be buried. May the LORD do so to me and more also if anything but death parts me from you,” (Ruth 1:16-17) so can peoples from any and every culture forsake the defective aspects of their own culture in order to be grafted into the Church of Christ and reap the benefits of the transformation of culture that comes along with faith the gospel. I think this is where many of the kinists and race realists are missing the boat. They conflate race and culture, as though culture is immutably tied to biology. Thus they become more concerned that their grandchildren “look like them,” than they are about teaching the ways of God to their children “when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise” (Deut 6:7).

I agree with the sentiments you expressed. There is one thing that I dislike about your reply though. I admit that being raised in a protestant household has left a mark on me. I dislike and distrust anything that smells like Roman Catholicism. The use of the term "excommunicated" is one such distasteful thing. While maybe not theologically wrong, I prefer the term disfellowship. For many, the word excommunicate at the very least implies that the church is denying a person salvation and entry into heaven. This is just my opinion though. Anyway, continue to be like the Bereans and study the scripture to verify the truth. Go with grace in Christ.

I can understand that kind of dislike of the term, but I am taking it directly from the OPC's Book of Discipline, which bases the censure on Scripture. Here's what excommunication actually means: "Excommunication is the most severe form of censure and is resorted to only in cases of offenses aggravated by persistent impenitence. It consists in a solemn declaration by an ecclesiastical judicatory that the offender is no longer considered a member of the body of Christ." So, yes, there is an element of declaring that someone is not saved. Yet, it is not on the basis of the church saying so, but on the basis of the person's persistent unrepentance. By their actions they have shown themselves to have no fruit in keeping with repentance, and so the church no longer considers them a member of the body of Christ. This is based on a few passages from Scripture: “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." — Matthew 18:15-18 "It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people⁠— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler⁠—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. 'Purge the evil person from among you.'” — 1 Corinthians 5:1-13 "As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned." — Titus 3:10-11 Now let's talk about the actual effects of excommunication, as least as it is practiced in the OPC and similar denominations. It is NOT shunning. That is, we do not tell the person they are no longer welcome at church. They just aren't permitted to participate in the Lord's Supper. We actually WANT them to continue to come and hear the gospel, repent, and be restored. However, in our interactions with them, we are going to consider them to be an unbeliever until they are restored. Excommunication is also not the only level of censure, nor is it the first level that the church will typically jump to. First there is admonition, which is "tenderly and solemnly confronting the offender with his sin, warning him of his danger, and exhorting him to repentance and to greater fidelity to the Lord Jesus Christ." If he remains unrepentant it may proceed to rebuke, which is "setting forth the serious character of the offense, reproving the offender, and exhorting him to repentance and to more perfect fidelity to the Lord Jesus Christ." In other words, a more formal and serious form of admonition, and all the while the elders will be working with him to try to bring him to repentance. If he still refuses to repent, then the church may hold a trial and likely proceed to suspension from the privileges of membership, which means they aren't permitted to participate in the Lord's Supper, and it is used as a means of saying, "By your unrepentance it is not clear to us whether you are a Christian. Therefore, for your own safety, you should not participate in the Lord's Supper until we have seen evidence of a repentant heart." Only if a person continues in persistent and obstinent unrepentance does the church move to excommunication. In the 5 years I have been an elder, it has happened once, and by God's grace the man eventually repented and was restored. The term "disfellowship" seems to have more of a connotation of "you're not welcome here." More like shunning. But that's just my impression from the term. I don't know how your church practices it.