Presbyterians are proud of their role in the American Revolution, often telling anyone who will listen that the only clergy to sign the Declaration of Independence was Presbyterian — or that the revolution was dubbed “the Presbyterian revolution” by one English nobleman.
And you’ll often hear how the nation’s form of government was heavily influenced by Presbyterian practice.
Related reading: “PC(USA) to consider policy rejecting White Christian nationalism” by John Bolt, Outlook reporting
But that pride was not enough to overcome the specter of growing support of White Christian nationalism, which critics say is a bastardization of the ideals of democracy.
This July Fourth marks the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, and celebrations are already underway across the nation.
The Committee on Reformed Identity in the United States, meeting virtually this week for three days, considered three overtures relating to this conversation: two dealing with White Christian nationalism (RUS-01, RUS-07) and one asking for a commemoration of the “vital role of the Presbyterian Church and the Reformed Tradition in the American Revolution of 1775-83, including 12 Presbyterians and 13 Congregationalists among the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, representing the largest religious grouping within the 2.5 million inhabitants of the 13 colonies at that time” (RUS-02).
The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) defines Christian nationalism as “a political ideology that seeks to merge Christian identity with American civic life and national identity. It asserts that the United States was founded as a Christian nation and should continue to be governed according to what its proponents see as Christian values or biblical principles.”
Markers of White Christian nationalism include assertions that:
- “America is divinely chosen or specially blessed by God.
- “U.S. laws and policies should reflect Christian beliefs, often from a conservative evangelical perspective.
- “Christianity should have a privileged place in public life (e.g., in government, schools, monuments).
- “The Founding Fathers intended for the U.S. to be explicitly Christian in governance.”
Approving “Standing Against White Christian Nationalism” and its recommendations
As directed by GA226 (2024), the denomination’s Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP) created “Standing Against White Christian Nationalism.” In the document, ACSWP lays out eight actions to take to inform and educate the denomination about the issue.
The Reformed Identity in the United States Committee approved ACSWP’s RUS-07, “Standing Against White Christian Nationalism Recommendations and Rationale,” 50-6, with an amendment. ACSWP will present “Standing Against Christian Nationalism” to the GA next week for approval. The full GA will also vote next week on two assertions:
“The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) repudiates the ideology and practices of white Christian nationalism in all its forms and affirms the PCUSA’s historical support for disestablishment of religion as enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Christian nationalism is a political ideology that seeks to merge Christian identity with U.S. civic life and national identity. It asserts that the United States was founded as a Christian nation and should continue to be governed according to what its proponents see as Christian values or biblical principles. ‘Nationalism’ emphasizes the importance of a ‘homeland’ with a shared ethnic identity among its citizens. Christian Nationalism becomes ‘white’ when it suggests that those of northern European ancestry are inherently more capable, intelligent, moral, and able to lead — and are thus the only ‘true Americans’ and ‘true Christians.’”
Further, the recommendation states that PC(USA), the largest Presbyterian denomination in the United States, “acknowledges and repents of its historical complicity in white Christian nationalism.”
ACSWP member Rick Nutt, who led the writing of the policy statement, told the committee that White Christian nationalism was not about ideology, but about power.
A potential amendment to the Book of Order
The Committee on Reformed Identity in the United States Committee also approved RUS-01, “On Taking Action to Repudiate Christian Nationalism and Affirm Our Faith Commitments,” 52-4, with amendment. The overture, submitted by The Presbytery of San Jose, seeks to codify the denomination’s stance against White Christian power in the church’s constitution, found in the Book of Order.
The approved request would add a new section titled “My Kingdom is not of this world,” and would read: ”The church shall not align with any ideology that seeks to privilege Christianity in public life or conflate religious identity with national or ethnic supremacy. Such ideology, in all its forms, which seeks to privilege a singular religious-cultural framework in civic life is incompatible with the example and teachings of Jesus Christ, a theological error, a threat to faithful witness, and contrary to the church.”
The recommendation will go to the full assembly next week.
The decision not to officially commemorate the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution
Reflecting the worry over the spread of White Christian nationalism, and the misrepresentation of the nation’s claimed beginnings, the committee was reluctant to call for a celebration of the role of Presbyterians in the American Revolution — as requested in RUS-02, “On Commemorating The 250th Anniversary of the American Revolution,” submitted by the Presbytery of Northeast New Jersey.
Instead, the committee rejected that suggestion, but added an explanation as to why, saying, in part:
“The committee’s concern is not with teaching Presbyterian history; the concern is with how this overture frames that history. [The Advocacy Committee for Women and Gender Justice] reminds commissioners that [the recommendation] ‘risks sanctifying a narrative that binds the Church’s witness to a national origin story rooted in conquest, exclusion, and the erasure of Indigenous peoples, particularly women and gender expansive persons.’ The overture also risks elevating American identity in unhealthy ways.”
The comment was approved 37-17.
