The Case for Christian Nationalism
The Case for Christian Nationalism
7. The Christian Prince | VI. The King and Kingdom of God (Part 1)
Previously:
There is, I admit, a natural fittingness to Christian nationalism and the prince as the “head of the Church.” But granting the prince this title would be, in my view, an abuse of power and constitute the usurpation of Christ’s kingship over the church.1
In some ways, I commend Wolfe for looking to separate civil and ecclesial power as proper temporal and spiritual kingdoms, but, as with blasphemy law, his application is the same type of academic theory that will fall to pieces when confronted with actual human behavior. One can look to Northern European countries and their centuries of attempts to have similar polity that ultimately wound up liberalizing the church, to the point that most have little in common with what their founders envisioned. Five hundred years ago the Anglican church supported the execution of recalcitrant Catholics; by a century and a half ago, a significant portion of ministers denied the divinity of Christ2; in February of 2023, the Anglican General Synod voted to bless same-sex unions.3 This is not to endorse any of these positions, or to make a liberal/conservative distinction, but it shows how churches will often be changed by their culture, over time. Even worse, a state-church is not only shaped by the culture of its nation, but by the political maneuvering of the people in civil power. Of course, independent denominations can be subverted over time as well, but one of the key reasons American Christians continue to be more conservative than their European counterparts is the lack of an official state religion. Having no official state-church, especially in a majority Christian nation, allows people to dedicate themselves to Christ - to actually be good citizens of the spiritual kingdom - without the worry of lowering their social status within Christian society.
We know that, in Wolfe’s full vision, women and non-Christians will not have the right to decide how they are governed; what other religious preclusion would he impose on the people? For example, would someone not in the state-church be allowed to hold public office at all levels? Within several generations, the power structure of the civil and ecclesial institutions would inevitably become commingled; in theocratic Caesarism, what would prevent the Christian Prince’s extended family and their allies from attaining a majority stake not just the halls of civil government but also in the state Presbyterian General Assembly? Who would oppose them attaining that dual-power, when the head of their family already wields the civil sword of a “totality of national action” and suppresses anyone he deems the “enemy of God”?
The visible kingdom of Christ, though extending to things external and temporal, does not destroy or abrogate what is earthly.4
It is again worth noting the poor theology that states that Christ, Lord of all creation, who conquered death itself, does not possess the power to “abrogate what is earthly”. There is a deep irony in that Wolfe will, in the next chapter, argue for violently abrogating the earthly authority of heavenly-appointed government when it meets his subjective definition of tyrannical. It would seem that Christ cannot abrogate what is earthly, but Stephen Wolfe can.
Wolfe next gives a description of the visible church as “a Christian people’s life around sacred things.”5 This statement, as well as most in this section on Two Kingdoms Theology, are inline with a Calvin’s view, but this distinction of the visible church, which necessitates an invisible church, is at direct odds with Baptist theology. In the Baptist view, since all baptized members of the church have made a profession of faith, there is technically no distinction between the visible and invisible church (though they recognize that not all in the church are true believers). This lack of distinction has been noted by several Baptist theologians, including Scott Aniol, Professor of Pastoral Theology at Grace Bible Theological Seminary, who made the statement, on Twitter, that “Baptists and Christendom are inherently incompatible.” Wolfe’s response was to claim that this would mean “Baptists and political atheism are compatible,” which Aniol rightly rejected as a false dichotomy.6 As previously mentioned, conservative Christian Americans who adhere to credobaptism exponentially outnumber those who adhere to paedobaptism and the visible/invisible distinction. How this immense outnumbering would immediately negate his ability to enact a successful solo-revolution will be addressed in the next chapter.
Moving on to the difference between the mediation of Christ and the Prince, Wolfe says, “Christ as mediator, as he relates to his mediatorial office, lacks civil power” (emphasis mine). As above, the Christology of Wolfe is highly flawed; Christ is God and God ordains civil power. Even though He holds multiple offices (Prophet, Priest, King), how can One who ordains civil power lack civil power? Wolfe then claims that the Christian prince “can direct the church to a great extent” in matters tangential to the church and that he “exercises his power for the kingdom - on things extrinsic but necessary and supplemental to the advancement of that kingdom.” This extrinsic power includes the extremely vague category of “defensive power about ecclesial matters”, taken from Turretin.7
What would prevent a theocratic Caesar from taking the same path of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy? In 2022 he declared the Ukrainian Orthodox Church to be infiltrated with Russian agents and had cathedrals and monasteries raided, presenting “photos of children’s bibles, prayer books, old liturgical books, archival collections of newspapers and magazines featuring the words ‘Russian’, and Christmas or Easter sermons of the Russian Church patriarch” as supposed evidence.8 In March of 2023, Metropolitan Pavel, the abbot of a Kyiv monastery, was placed under house arrest after allegedly cursing Zelenskyy.9 What, or who, would stop the Christian prince from using such charges to neutralize any ecclesial authorities that stood in the way of his political ambitions? If Wolfe thinks this is beyond a human being adorned with such power that he sees himself as “an image of Christ to his people”10 he is terribly naive.
Next:
Stephen Wolfe, The Case for Christian Nationalism (Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 2022), 300.
See: W.H. Fremantle from Introduction: The Great Renewal, II. Definition.
Harriet Sherwood, “Church of England Votes in Favour of Blessings for Same-Sex Unions,” The Guardian, February 9, 2023, sec. World news, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/09/church-of-england-votes-in-favour-of-blessings-for-same-sex-unions.
Stephen Wolfe, 305.
Stephen Wolfe, 308-309.
Stephen Wolfe, 310, 311.
Yevhen Herman, “Zelensky vs. the Ukrainian Orthodox Church,” The American Conservative, January 25, 2023, https://www.theamericanconservative.com/zelensky-vs-the-ukrainian-orthodox-church/.
“Ukraine Places Priest Under House Arrest For Allegedly Justifying Russian Aggression Days After He Cursed Zelensky,” The Daily Wire, April 1, 2023, https://www.dailywire.com/news/ukraine-places-priest-under-house-arrest-for-allegedly-justifying-russian-aggression-days-after-he-cursed-zelensky.
Stephen Wolfe, 309.