The Case for Christian Nationalism

4. Perfecting Your Nation | III. Objections

Previously:

The Case for Christian Nationalism

While Wolfe’s description of the eternal kingdom’s redeeming work versus the temporal kingdom’s restorative work is is not entirely disagreeable, on the surface, his argument for a Christian nationalist application is anything but air-tight.

Thus, the question… concerns this conception of restoration, viz., whether Christians ought to seek the Christianization of the family, civil society, and civil government.¹

This is a false equivalence of family to government. There is specific, scriptural precedent for the explicit “Christianization of the family”, as he puts it (Proverbs 14:26, Ephesians 6:4, 2 Timothy 1:5, to name a few). The same can be said for the Christianization of civil society as a work of the Spirit, through the peaceful application of the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19), but there is no explicit, scriptural precedent for the purposeful Christianization of civil government. As was mentioned in the last section, even Calvin opened his section in the Institutes on First Table enforcement by admitting this. His commentary on Romans 13 also notes that “the first table of the law, which contains what we owe to God, is not here referred to at all.”²

Wolfe then writes, “… working is no longer (for the believer) the condition for eternal life. But this does not rescind the work itself; ordering this world to the next remains natural to man, especially to restored man.”³ Again, Wolfe breaks with Scripture (Isaiah 24:5), the doctrine of his own church, and its 16th and 17th century founders when he states that the reprobate naturally order this world to the next. For the redeemed, recognizing the limits of our ability to bring about restorative change is of great concern, for we must remember that what matters most to God is heart change (Matthew 15:11), and that He desires mercy far more than sacrifice (Matthew 9:13) and man’s acknowledgement of Him far more than performative action (Hosea 6:6). That Wolfe is so sure of what is “natural” does not give me great confidence in his ability to restrain himself. The accusation of Pharisaical legalism is certainly overused, but was not their sin that they became obsessed with “ordering this world” through the civil enforcement of their interpretation of natural principles (John 5:9-12)? Should not a Protestant Christian, especially one who relies so heavily on appeals to Reformed tradition, tread with extreme caution, fully aware of how the Catholic church’s attempt to wield two swords resulted in just this type of destructive, legalistic civil government?

An earthly kingdom is a Christian kingdom when it orders the people to the kingdom of heaven.⁴

Though he previously attempted to prove the need for a government to “direct its people to the Christian religion”, this is still what is known as a genetic logical fallacy, assuming that something is good or bad, simply based upon its taxonomy (Christian). In 1693, Salem, Massachusetts, was a “Christian kingdom” that thought it was ordering people to the kingdom of heaven, when two-hundred people were accused of witchcraft, and nineteen murdered. Most Bible-believing, American Christians, if they knew the details of colonial civil law regarding religion, would recoil at the thought of returning to such a mode of civil government, and would perhaps think deeper about the full ramifications of loudly proclaiming that we are a “Christian nation”. Michael Williams wrote of how the explicitly Christian kingdom of England chartered the colony of New England, and how the polity of Wolfe’s own Presbyterian church was prohibited by law:

In the charter of New England granted by William and Mary in 1691, we find the provision ‘That forever hereafter shall there be a liberty of conscience allowed in the worship of God to all Christians (except Papists) inhabiting or which shall inhabit or be resident without our said province or territory.’ But long before this document was drawn up the Congregational Church had been established as the official religion, compulsory for all the inhabitants and supported by general taxes, and no Jesuit or spiritual or ecclesiastical person ordained by the authority of the Pope or See of Rome was allowed within the colony.⁵

Wolfe is not initially incorrect in his proceeding assertion that restoration “is an outgrowth or secondary effect of salvific grace,” but he puts forth an incredible contradiction to Scripture (and the Reformed doctrine of sanctification in the Westminster Confession of Faith⁶) when he next states that “It follows that restoration is a work of human will. It is a matter of striving; man cooperates with grace to restore the natural world for his good.”⁷ Multiple assertions from the Apostle Paul directly rebuke him:

for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure. (Philippians 2:13, emphasis mine)

For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus. (Philippians 1:6)

I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. And the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. (Galatians 2:20)

But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. (Galatians 6:14)

Wolfe strawmans his opposition with the opening to his next subsection, entitled Exile, Sojourner, Stranger, when he paints those who would not “Christianize civil and social institutions” with a sort of American Anabaptist brush, as if they are almost totally averse to participation in politics. He then claims their worldview is rooted in “modern notions of tolerance and legal conceptions of freedom (e.g., freedoms of religion, expression, assembly, and speech),” and that “the Reformed tradition prior to the 20th-century would not recognize it, and... it reflects the post-World War II consensus of values.”⁸ This statement is worth breaking down, in detail.

• As shown in the last section, freedom of religion is not just a modern, secular value, but was the rule of law for the first Christian empire, under Constantine in 313 A.D.

• A plurality of the most politically active, conservative Christian Americans today would affirm the Bill of Rights, including “freedoms of religion, expression, assembly, and speech”, and prohibiting the establishment of a state church. A 2022 study conducted by the Marist Poll, concluded that 62% of Americans believe that the First Amendment was inspired by God.⁹ His correlation between First Amendment values and an aversion to conservative politics among Christians is patently false.

• He yet again makes a fallacious appeal to “the Reformed tradition”, as if that statement, on its own, should garner immediate obedience. The actual reformers, whose authority he has so often appealed to, would demand he at least somewhat cite Scripture to back up his claims.

• We should not miss the implication that his “nation perfected” would, like other forms of authoritarian nationalism, take away your rights of “freedoms of religion, expression, assembly, and speech”. As someone who has now publicly disagreed with nearly everything written so far, under his rule I would likely be imprisoned and then banished for unrepentantly refuting his form of government. Wolfe will go as far as to argue for the execution of “arch-heretics” and those who will not cease evangelizing other religions, in chapter 9.¹⁰

A Christian is a foreigner in relation to fallenness - to a world in “bondage to decay” (Romans 8:21) - but fallenness itself is foreign to nature. (emphasis mine)¹¹

Almost two-hundred pages into the book, Wolfe finally cites Scripture, but, unfortunately, he cites it poorly. I believe he probably relied on Aquinas for this reference, and did not properly look at the full context and at other areas of Scripture. One might be able to overlook “fallenness” and “foreign” as semantics issues, if Wolfe had not spent the entire book, thus far, repeatedly stating how nature, in and of itself, is properly functional in its present condition, and if Aquinas was not explicit in his view that “the good of nature” is not “diminished by sin”.

For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. (Romans 8:19-22, emphasis mine)

And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; (Genesis 3:17, emphasis mine)

The earth mourns and withers; the world languishes and withers; the highest people of the earth languish. The earth lies defiled under its inhabitants; for they have transgressed the laws, violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore a curse devours the earth, and its inhabitants suffer for their guilt; therefore the inhabitants of the earth are scorched, and few men are left. (Isaiah 24:4-6, emphasis mine)

Only two verses back from his reference, we can see that creation is not just subject to decay, as Wolfe claims, but also futility. The Greek word is ματαιότητι (mataiotēti), which means devoid of truth, frail, or perverse (at any rate, certainly diminished to some level). Paul also uses this word in his letter to the Ephesians, when he describes the futility of the reprobate mind (Ephesians 4:17). Genesis and Isaiah remind us that the earth is defiled by our sin and cursed by God. Paul tells us that the hope for creation is to obtain the same freedom of glory promised to us, that will come with Christ’s return. Creation shares our fate and, thankfully, we both have a redeemer in the Son.

Wolfe closes this subsection by repeating the unfounded claim that, “Even Adam in the state of integrity, as he grew in maturity, would have felt as if he were a stranger in this world…”¹² As shown in chapter 1, God revealed no prelapsarian state to Adam but to “work and keep” the garden (Genesis 2:15), and there is no Scriptural reason to proclaim that his probationary state would extend indefinitely and to his progeny.

I suspect that people will label my position a “triumphalist” theology or a “theology of glory” as opposed to a “theology of the cross”. I’ll simply say that I’ve laid out my premises and my argument, and I welcome anyone to refute them or demonstrate my argument’s invalidity. Simply labeling my view a “theology of glory” proves nothing. If you want to claim that the cross and the resurrection revealed new universal and binding principles of outward human action, then explain their place theologically. Explain how these principles of grace cohere with those of nature. Explain how adventitious heavenly duties conduce to natural earthly goods. That is to say, do more than assert disparate ethical principles; provide a coherent system.¹³

The monumental narcissism of this statement is breathtaking, which is why I quoted it in its entirety; I am genuinely shocked that he would be so bold as to state that any opposition to his theory must be limited to his rules of engagement, and would likely be incoherent in its argument. I will leave it to the reader to determine whether, thus far, I have successfully refuted his premises and argument and demonstrated their invalidity. I will now take on each of his individual challenges.

• I would not call his a “theology of glory”, because I have seen next to no theology from him at all. Theology requires one to be able to at least minimally exegete Scripture. What Wolfe has presented is doctrine, faulty at that, because his views of God and creation are derived through a game of telephone with 16th and 17th century intermediaries. I believe he relies so heavily on Aquinas, not because it comports with what he has read in Scripture, but because it fits into his worldly, political preconceptions.

• Here is a universal and binding principle of outward human action that the cross and resurrection revealed: Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God and no one comes to the father but through submission to him. I know this doesn’t meet Wolfe’s requirement, but I felt it needed to be stated anyway. His question is based on the false premise that he has properly interpreted nature, and thus constitutes a loaded question fallacy. Jesus came to “fulfill the Law” (Matthew 5:17), and so did not alter universal principles, but He did so in a way that no one anticipated. That is the lesson to learn here, that our interpretation of nature is faulty and must be tested against the special revelation of God. I believe I have already conclusively proven, in previous chapters and even just above, that Wolfe has a very scripturally unsound understanding of nature, and of the “principles of outward human action” that he builds upon that defective understanding.

• Requesting an explanation of how “principles of grace cohere with those of nature” is again a loaded question that assumes his interpretation of natural principles is correct, and is also a burden of proof logical fallacy. He must prove how his view of nature coheres with Scripture, not the other way around. I doubt Wolfe would publicly say that God’s word is errant, therefore he must confirm it as the only infallible rule in this comparison. General revelation cannot contradict special revelation, therefore he must exegete Scripture to prove every one of his claims about nature’s relation to the gospel. He has failed miserably on this front. He may claim, because of all his supposed aspects of nature that are not altered by the gospel, that I would be forcing him into making an argument from silence. But, as I have shown above, his base premises about creation, fall and redemption are not congruous with Scripture, so he would first have to exegetically prove his version of the three before worrying about how the gospel does or does not interact with creation.

• His purported theology proves its brokenness when he assumes a universal principle of “adventitious heavenly duties conduce to natural earthly goods”. Christ could not have been more explicit when he said, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me” (Luke 9:23). We are given no guarantee of the type of “earthly goods”, through obligation to “heavenly duties”, that Wolfe requires to reach his nation’s “complete good”. It is possible that we will have earthly prosperity, but it is just as possible that our dedication to Christ will require a life of poverty and physical suffering. Paul tells us to rejoice in those sufferings (Romans 5:3-5), because they produce the real complete good of hope in Christ. Certainly, “blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord” (Psalm 33:12), but Christian nations are not under the same Mosaic covenant that Israel was (as Wolfe also affirms). The guaranteed blessings of a modern people oriented to God are spiritual fruit (Galatians 5:22-23), not any special “natural earthly goods” beyond what non-Christian nations seek after (Matthew 6:31-33). In the end, how is the human-initiated “supernatural application” Wolfe is proposing any different than a “health and wealth” prosperity gospel on the national level?

• It is not my goal to present an alternative political theory in this book, or elsewhere. I am only concerned with proving that Wolfe’s theory is not inline with Scripture, and that it is little more than repackaged authoritarian nationalism, with significant ethno-nationalist elements, laundered through Two-Kingdoms theology to a Christian audience. I pray this work will be of assistance to Christ’s body, and has been to the reader, thus far.

Next:

The Case for Christian Nationalism

1. Stephen Wolfe, The Case for Christian Nationalism (Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 2022), 194.

2. John Calvin, Commentary on Romans, 13:10.

3. Ibid., 194.

4. Ibid., 195.

5. Michael Williams, Shadow of the Pope (New York: Whittlesey House, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1932), 24.

6. The Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms: As Adopted by the Orthodox Presbyterian Church : With Proof Texts (Lawrenceville, Ga.: Christian Education & Publications Committee of the Presbyterian Church in America, 2007), sec. 13.2-3

2. This sanctification is throughout in the whole man, yet imperfect in this life: there abideth still some remnants of corruption in every part, whence ariseth a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.

3. In which war, although the remaining corruption for a time may much prevail, yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part doth overcome: and so the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

7. Stephen Wolfe, 196.

8. Ibid., 196.

9. Kelsey Dallas, “Many Americans Say God Inspired the Constitution ... except That Part about Guns,” Deseret News, April 23, 2022, https://www.deseret.com/faith/2022/4/22/23036178/many-americans-say-god-inspired-the-constitution-except-that-part-about-guns-pew-research-marist.

10. Stephen Wolfe, 391-392.

11. Ibid., 197.

12. Ibid., 197.

13. Ibid., 198.