An article about Christian nationalism sheds light on RPCNA practices...

I'm not generally a big fan of Al Jazeera, which seems to be a pro-Islam media site, but this article really resonated with my RPCNA experience.

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/power-worshippers-american-religious-200422144158404.html

It is, in fact, modern in its methods and doctrines, which "notwithstanding their purported origins in ancient texts have been carefully shaped to serve the emotional needs of its adherents, the organisational needs of its clerical leaders, and the political needs and ambitions of its funders".

Translation, there is a triangle of power inherent in Christian fundamentalism. The adherents give money to support politicians and church leaders in exchange for the feeling of moral superiority and being part of a righteous movement. The church leaders get money, power and prestige in exchange for preaching political talking points and delivering members as a voting bloc to politicians. The politicians get votes, money and power in exchange for championing moral legislation and appearing onstage with religious leaders.

Al Jazeera: What are some of the ways in which the emotional needs of adherents are exploited by movement leaders? 

Stewart: Among the emotional needs of some adherents is a desire for a certain empowerment as members of a special or uniquely virtuous group of people. So religious nationalism goes overboard in insisting on the unique virtues of the religion and culture with which its followers identify.
   An additional emotional need of some adherents, exploited by leaders of the movement, is to validate feelings of grievance and resentment, and to focus them on some imagined impure "other," a scapegoat.
   Christian nationalism, like other forms of religious nationalism around the world and throughout history, delivers a set of persecution narratives that represent the "good" religious people as under threat and as victims of an evil "other".

So, religious nationalist organizations, like the RPCNA, encourage their adherents by creating a cultural narrative that is equated with righteousness. In the RPCNA, it is "National Reform" - that is, a focus on theocracy (a national covenant), and a political focus on specific moral issues, especially abortion.

Al Jazeera: How have the doctrines been shaped to meet the needs of the movement's clerical leaders?  

Stewart: Fundamentally the doctrines of religious nationalism reinforce authority - of scripture, of course, but also the authority of religious and political leaders.
  This is what religious nationalism does around the world. Their doctrines make an absolute virtue out of obedience to a literalist or strict interpretation of their religion.

Wow, she pretty much nails the RPCNA here. Under the guise of faithful obedience to God, the church promotes a narrow interpretation (WCF and RPCNA Constitution), especially as it relates to the authority of, and unquestioned obedience to, the church and her leadership.

Al Jazeera: Who funds the movement, and how have the doctrines been shaped to meet their needs?

Stewart: The movement has multiple sources of funding, including small-dollar donors, various types of public subsidy and funding, and affluent donors.
  Many of those affluent donors belong to super-wealthy hyperextended families. So it is not surprising that many of the doctrines the movement favours are about money. They say the Bible and God oppose progressive income taxes, capital gains taxes and minimum wage laws. That the Bible favours low taxes for the rich and minimal rights for the workforce. They argue that environmental regulation, regulation of businesses, and public funding of the social safety net are "unbiblical" or "against the biblical model".
  In this way, I think, Christian nationalists have betrayed what might have been their strongest suit. Christianity, as most people understand it, has something to do with loving our neighbours. But leaders of this movement have thrown in their lot with a bunch of selfish economic reactionaries who tell us we don't owe anybody anything.

I've always wondered this... why does the RPCNA argue against welfare, when the OT provided welfare - and it wasn't about reforming welfare, but eliminating it altogether.

The article goes on to trace the origins of the Christian nationalistic movement, and it is deeply troubling. The RPCNA, which held deep convictions against slavery and racial injustice, with churches serving as stops on the Underground Railroad, got duped into supporting pro-segregation southern theologians like Jerry Falwell and Bob Jones, who were looking for another source of tax-sheltered funding, because "segregation" lost as a worthy cause of support.

Despite the fact that most evangelicals were initially in favor of abortion laws, Falwell and Jones were able to galvanize support under a "pro-life" stance, which delivered the power proposition to conservative denominations and political leaders.
---

This article really put things neatly together. For example, I've had minor skirmishes with a few RP pastors over the teaching of the Bible, the WCF and the Constitution. Practically, what I found was that their authority trumped all of the above. When I backed them into a corner, that was the argument ender - not the Bible, not the church standards, but their claim to superiority.

I also had a rude awakening to the whole scheme when the local Right-To-Life chapter refused to endorse an obviously pro-life candidate. They had a FAQ on their website that explained that "electability" was one of their criteria in endorsement. So, their goal was not to endorse all issue-qualifying candidates, but to deliver a bloc of voters to the candidate of their choice. In fact, that was a lie, too. The next election was a pro-life incumbent Democrat vs. a pro-life Republican. They endorsed the Republican, despite the electability. Hmmm.

Since then, I realized that pro-life is such a galvanizing issue among Republican politicians that they dare not do anything to change the status quo. This is done under the guise of virtue signaling - that is, they cannot allow the state to give out free condoms that are proven to reduce the abortion rate, because they must take the moral high ground. Of course, they compromise on welfare laws, they compromise on healthcare, they compromise on educational funding and homeschooling laws, they compromise on protection of rights, but for some reason, abortion is all-or-nothing, or at least abortion can only be dealt with by making it harder to get, not by making it unnecessary in the first place, through better sex education, better consent laws and better reproductive services.