According to the PCA’s Christian Nationalism Report…
(1) Religious pluralism is “entirely consistent” with the 1788 Westminster Standards: The document states,
“Some…mean…that Christian piety (per WCF 23.2) is best promoted and protected when the civil magistrate promotes and protects the free exercise of all religions. This position is entirely consistent with the PCA’s constitutional standards.” (p. 2721)
Compare this statement by the PCA to Article 36 of the Belgic Confession of Faith,
… “The government’s task is not limited
to caring for and watching over the public domain
but extends also to upholding the sacred ministry,
with a view to removing and destroying
all idolatry and false worship of the Antichrist;
to promoting the kingdom of Jesus Christ;
and to furthering the preaching of the gospel everywhere;
to the end that God may be honored and served by everyone,
as he requires in his Word.
Bret responds to the PCA blather,
It is impossible to embrace religious pluralism without embracing religious polytheism. Religious pluralism allows all the gods into the public square which, in turn, yields a public square that is, by definition, polytheistic.
Keep in mind also that a genuine “free exercise of all religions,” must include the free exercise of the religion that put the Satanist statue of Molech in the Iowa state house last year. The free exercise of all religion means the mushrooming of Sharia law, Mosques, and cows strutting around as holy in your community. The free exercise of all religion means Burqas (Muslims), turbans with blades in them (Sikh), and tiny hats.
Per the PCA report Christian piety is best promoted and protected when the piety of false religions and false gods is unleashed.
(2) But views held by the Reformed Orthodox and even some American Presbyterians are “out of accord with the Standards.” The PCA document states,
“An officer who believes that the civil magistrate has the duty to suppress heresies… holds a view that is directly contrary to the text of WCF 23.3 as adopted by the PCA…. In the judgment of the Ad Interim Committee, such an officer is out of accord with the Standards on this point.” (p. 2721)
Bret responds,
Here we are told that a Church officer in the PCA who believes that a civil magistrate should put down the heresy of Mormon polygamy holds a view contrary to the WCF. Here we are told that a Church officer in the PCA who believes that the civil magistrate should put down the heresy of Muslim incestuous breeding holds a view contrary to the WCF. Here we are told that a Church officer in the PCA who holds to the Establishment principle is out of accord with the WCF.
And,
“A candidate who argues that the state should enforce the specific penal sanctions of the Mosaic judicial code (like capital punishment for idolatry, blasphemy, or heresy) has, in our judgment, crossed a boundary that the General Assembly has already established.” (p. 2724)
Bret responds,
This is a direct attack on theonomy.
I wonder … can a candidate say in an ordination exam,
“Well, since God’s word requires capital punishment for murder and kidnapping I believe those convicted of murder and kidnapping should be visited with capital punishment.”
Or
Must he say instead,
“Well, since principled pluralism hints at capital punishment for murder and kidnapping I believe those convicted of murder and kidnapping should be visited with capital punishment.”
