The Case for Christian Nationalism
Introduction: The Great Renewal | IV. Method
Previously:
This is a work of Christian political theory. It is not, overall, a work of political theology… Some readers will complain that I rarely appeal to Scripture to argue for my positions. I understand the frustration, but allow me to explain: I am neither a theologian nor a biblical scholar. I have no training in moving from scriptural interpretation to theological articulation.1
Again, Nationalist Christianity seems a better title for his theory, under these conditions, or perhaps Nationalism with Western Christianity as the unifying culture. This setup opens the door for him to back out of theological rebuke of his theories, much in the same way comedian Jon Stewart will make a belligerent and controversial political statement and retreat into, “Hey, I’m just a comedian.” If one aims to put forward a thesis, entitled Christian [anything], then he should have a strong, first hand understanding of Scripture, and not primarily rely on an intermediary, in this case the “Reformed exegetal tradition” of the “16th and 17th centuries”, to give his ideas scriptural gravitas. Wolfe goes on to say that “some of [his] conclusions are expressed differently than this tradition.” At the very least, to remain intellectually honest, he would need to exegete Scripture in those instances, to justify his different conclusions. To do otherwise would be to implicitly admit that he is cherry-picking theological statements that fit his preconceptions.
And, of course, I would certainly welcome any work of political theology in favor of Christian nationalism that can stand side-by-side with this work of Christian political theory. (emphasis mine)2
An intellectually honest position - and one that places our Lord at the center - would also clearly welcome political theology that can stand on its own but that disagrees with Christian nationalism. The footnote to this section says that the reader is free to cite Scripture to counter this theory, but then gives another escape hatch with an unconvincing explanation of how “too often” these arguments lack coherence - how would he know if he cannot sufficiently exegete for his own arguments? Wolfe dismissed Neil Shenvi’s multiple theological refutations as “Neil did not deal with my argument”, including one where it was solidly proven that Wolfe’s view of the fall is out of line with the Westminster Confession and Heidelberg Catechism (and, therefore, not consistent with the Reformed exegetical tradition of the 16th and 17th centuries).3 Until proven wrong, it should be questioned whether there is a dissenting, theological argument that Wolfe will accept in good faith.
Wolfe then explains that his theory is very Thomistic, not because it is necessarily scripturally sound, but because 16th and 17th century Reformed thought was “very Thomistic and catholic”.4 Nevermind the strong push-back he would get from modern, Reformed theologians for relying on Aquinas; by framing its use in this way, Wolfe has made the Christian in his “Christian nationalism” appeal to authority (Reformed thought) and appeal to consensus (catholic) logical fallacies. The reformers would certainly rebuke this as failing the Sola Scriptura test.
The primary reason that this work is political theory is that I proceed from a foundation of natural principles. While Christian theology assumes natural theology as an ancillary component, Christian political theory treats natural principles as the foundation… (emphasis mine)5
Thus begins a section on “natural principles” that has a murky epistemological basis. He claims that “civil leaders ought to order the people to the true God” is a natural principle that is correctly “applied and fulfilled by means of [the] supernatural truth” of the Triune God.6 Scripture tells us that man, apart from special revelation, suppresses the truth of general revelation (Romans 1:18-20). Therefore, man cannot rely on apparent “natural principles” for revelation of a correct horizontal relationship with other men, without first having his vertical relationship with the Creator revealed to him. In other words, special revelation is the foundation by which general revelation is no longer suppressed. Even the reprobate greet their brothers (Matthew 5:47) and can form governments that are “not a terror to good conduct” (Romans 13:3), but, in Reformed theology, this is due to the restraint of the Spirit (2 Thessalonians 2:7), and not fallen man’s natural inclination. It will be shown that Wolfe’s insistence on assumed natural principles as his foundation for good, Christian government breaks with the doctrine of his own church. If he were to respond that this is the difference between theology and political theory, the denial of a foundation of special revelation would still call it’s Christian credibility into question. This strikes me as Kantian as much as it is Thomistic. He will rely heavily on it for his thesis.
Following this, he makes a ham-fisted attempt at elevating his own methodology above his peers', by claiming that modern authors rely on devices, such as “tweetable shiboleths”7 - an ironic complaint, considering Wolfe has no problem using Twitter in an antagonistic, otherizing way, towards his ideological opponents.8
This section is closed with a further classification of his theory as “Presbyterian Christian nationalism”.9 This is nothing of note yet, but it will present interesting conundrums later on, especially when baptism serves as a civil induction ceremony and turns the body politic into the visible “people of God”, something that is likely to draw strong dissent from credobaptists.
Next:
Stephen Wolfe, The Case for Christian Nationalism (Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 2022), 16.
Ibid., 17.
“Of Gods and Men: A Long Review of Wolfe’s Case for Christian Nationalism, Part I – Book Summary,” Neil Shenvi - Apologetics (blog), November 22, 2022, https://shenviapologetics.com/of-gods-and-men-a-long-review-of-wolfes-case-for-christian-nationalism-part-i-book-summary.
Stephen Wolfe, 17.
Ibid., 18.
Ibid., 19.
Ibid., 19.
Stephen Wolfe, 20.