by R. Lucas Stamps
Christian nationalism has been a major part of our public discourse since the Capitol Hill riots on January 6, 2021. What began as an epithet by progressives has come to be embraced by many on the right. Some conservative institutions, such as the Heritage Foundation, are now espousing policy proposals that its critics characterize as Christian nationalism. Some Republican lawmakers are happy to wear the label.
Defining the term is crucial for understanding how to analyze the debates. For many on the left, any application of Christian moral principles to public policy (say, on abortion legislation or transgender policies for minors) receives the label. Many on the right are wondering: Well, I’m a Christian and I believe in the sovereignty of nation-states to enact policies both foreign and domestic in their best interests. So, does that make me a Christian nationalist?
Others are using the label as a rough synonym for certain strands of historic Christian political theology, whether it be Augustinian, Thomistic, or early modern Reformed. Some in this vein are suggesting that Christian nationalism should entail that an explicit affirmation of Christ’s lordship should be enshrined in American law, complete with privileges granted to Christianity and potential punishments for non-Christian exercises of religion. Interestingly, some Baptists have entered the fray on the side of this approach despite historic Baptist distinctives that run counter to it.
There is an old trope among Baptists that says if you get two Baptists together you will find three different opinions. Like most jokes, this one has a kernel of truth to it. Appealing to Baptist history on anything is complicated. Appealing to Baptist history on political theology is especially fraught, given the various political orders in which Baptists have sought to carve out space for their unique expression of the Christian faith. Baptists have adapted to and thrived under monarchs and parliaments, under Catholic and Protestant rulers, during periods establishment and disestablishment, in seasons of toleration and—especially formative for Baptist political theory—in seasons of persecution.
When you survey Baptist history, you find voices arguing for a comprehensive form of religious liberty that was ahead of its time. For example, one of the earliest Baptists, Thomas Helwys, wrote that the king may not “be judge between God and man. Let them be heretics, Turks, Jews, or whatsoever, it appertains not to the earthly power to punish them in the least measure.”[1] On the other hand, you can occasionally find Baptist luminaries arguing for a more muscular Christian magistracy. For example, John Gill, arguably the most important eighteenth-century Baptist theologian, argues that a Christian king has a duty to enforce not only the second table of the law (laws governing love of neighbor) but also the first table of the law (laws governing love of God): “Kings are the guardians of the laws of God and man; and Christian kings have a peculiar concern with the laws of the two tables, that they are observed, and the violaters of them punished; as sins against the first table, idolatry, worshipping of more gods than one, and of graven images, blaspheming the name of God, perjury, and false swearing, and profanation of the day of worship.”[2]
Despite this diversity, the consistent accent in Baptist political theology has been placed upon religious liberty. Inviting the magistrate to prosecute matters of religion is a minority report in Baptist history. Baptist leaders often made the best of their political circumstances, but the consistent drumbeat was for freedom of religious expression and the separation of the civil and ecclesiastical powers. The Baptist confessional tradition represents this consensus Baptist view more accurately than any individual Baptist author. For example, the influential Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, which followed the establishmentarian Westminster Confession of Faith in most respects, tellingly omitted the mention of “piety” as a jurisdiction of the magistrate and left out entirely the paragraph outlining the magistrate’s role as a “nursing father” who has charge to “protect the church of our common Lord.”[3] Instead, what we find in the Baptist confession is an affirmation of the state’s crucial but limited role of maintaining public justice and peace. The maintenance of evangelical piety and the business of the gospel are the exclusive jurisdiction of the church of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Whatever we make of the variegated Baptist tradition, the key concern for contemporary Baptists on questions of political theory should be Baptist theology, not simply Baptist history. What is the internal biblical and theological logic of the Baptist vision? The most relevant question is not, “What were the historically contingent opinions of specific Baptists (often under duress) in various political arrangements?” but rather, “What are the political entailments of Baptist biblical theology and ecclesiology?” In other words, what is the Baptist ideal when it comes to political theology?
The Baptist Faith and Message (2000), the confessional statement of the Southern Baptist Confession, answers this very question in its article on religious liberty:
The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind . . . A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.[4]
The Baptist vision is founded upon the notion of “free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men.” The Baptist commitment to a believers’ church and the corollary commitment to believers-only baptism presuppose the dignity and freedom of the individual in matters of religion. The shift from the old covenant to the new covenant signals a reconstitution of the people of God, grounded not in parentage but in personal faith in Jesus Christ.[5] True saving faith cannot be coerced. Individuals are not born into the church in the same way they are born into the family or the state. They must be born again for entrance into the new covenant people of God. If individuals are to be free to accept the claims of Christ, then they must be free to reject those claims as well. The wheat and the tares must grow together in the field of the world. The final sifting is not the prerogative of any earthly authority but the exclusive preserve of God himself through his holy angels at the end of the age (Matthew 13:30).
Magisterial Protestants, those who believe that the civil magistrate partners with the church to maintain a Christian social order, agree that the government cannot coerce internal belief—but they also argue that a Christian state has the authority to restrict the external expression of contrary religious beliefs. A Christian state can, in principle, punish expressions of non-Christian belief (up to and including imprisonment and execution), though it may allow a degree of religious toleration as a matter of prudential judgment. All of this is inconsistent with the Baptist vision. Baptists are not content with a government that refuses to force feigned conversions but still presumes the authority to shut down peaceful religious dissent. Of course, there are limits to religious freedom: violence or other gross subversions of the social order (such as polygamy) are rightly proscribed. As the Baptist Faith and Message says in another context, “Freedom in any orderly relationship of human life is always limited and never absolute.” But provided these kinds of harm are not involved, the state is to give wide berth to religious expression. The Baptist ideal is, thus, “a free church in a free state.”
None of this suggests that Baptists are committed to a strictly secular society. Expressions of religious belief in the public square are not inconsistent with the Baptist vision. Baptists need not scrub “In God We Trust” from our currency or prohibit prayers at public events, and the Baptist vision certainly does not prevent the pursuit of legislation consistent with Christian ethical commitments. On the contrary, Baptists have been second to none in social action. Consider, for example, the great Baptist missionary William Carey and his opposition to the Hindu practice of sati, the burning of widows on their husbands’ funeral pyres.[6] Think of Andrew Fuller’s opposition to the slave trade[7] or Carl Henry’s lifelong pursuit of Christian public engagement.[8] Or, consider again the Baptist Faith and Message:
In the spirit of Christ, Christians should oppose racism, every form of greed, selfishness, and vice, and all forms of sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexuality, and pornography. We should work to provide for the orphaned, the needy, the abused, the aged, the helpless, and the sick. We should speak on behalf of the unborn and contend for the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death. Every Christian should seek to bring industry, government, and society as a whole under the sway of the principles of righteousness, truth, and brotherly love.[9]
Social action is an important part of Christian discipleship, especially the obligation to love our neighbors as ourselves. But social change is ultimately subordinate to and dependent upon the proclamation of the life-changing gospel of Jesus Christ. As the Baptist Faith and Message also says, “Means and methods used for the improvement of society and the establishment of righteousness among men can be truly and permanently helpful only when they are rooted in the regeneration of the individual by the saving grace of God in Jesus Christ.”
In sum, the Baptist ideal is a free church in a free state. It envisions a broad religious freedom within peaceful limits. It provides for Christians to be thoroughly engaged in the political process, bringing Christian commitments to bear on public policy. Even more importantly, it recognizes the unique role of the church and its proclamation of the gospel as the only means for bringing about meaningful and lasting change for both individuals and society as a whole. As the church in the West faces unique challenges from an encroaching illiberalism on the left and a sometimes fearful and confused reaction to it on the right, this Baptist ideal is needed now more than ever.
[1] Thomas Helwys, A Short Declaration on the Mystery of Iniquity, ed. Richard Groves (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1998), 53.
[2] John Gill, A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), 2:746.
[3] For a tabular comparison of the two confessions on this article, see https://www.proginosko.com/docs/wcf_lbcf.html#WCF23.
[4] The Baptist Faith and Message (2000), “Article XVII: Religious Liberty.” https://bfm.sbc.net/bfm2000/.
[5] For a critique of Christian Nationalism through the lens of Baptist theology, see Matthew Y. Emerson, “Is It Possible to Be a a Baptist Christian Nationalist?” 9Marks Journal (April 28, 2023): https://www.9marks.org/article/is-it-possible-to-be-a-baptist-christian-nationalist/
[6] See Timothy George, Faithful Witness: The Life and Mission of William Carey (Birmingham, AL: New Hope, 1991), 149-52.
[7] In his 1803 sermon, Christian Patriotism, Fuller states: “To prevent mistakes, however, it is proper to observe that the patriotism required of us is not that love of our country which clashes with universal benevolence, or which seeks its prosperity at the expense of the general happiness of mankind. Such was the patriotism of Greece and Rome; and such is that of all others where Christian principle is not allowed to direct it. Such, I am ashamed to say, is that with which some have advocated the cause of negro slavery. It is necessary, forsooth, to the wealth of this country! No; if my country cannot prosper but at the expense of justice, humanity, and the happiness of mankind, let it be unprosperous! But this is not the case. Righteousness will be found to exalt a nation, and so to be true wisdom.” http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/fuller.sermon.partiotism.html.
[8] See especially the influential 1947 manifesto, Carl F. H. Henry, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003).
[9] “Article XV: The Christian and the Social Order.”
