The Case for Christian Nationalism

4. Perfecting Your Nation | V. Conclusion

Previously:

The Case for Christian Nationalism

In the next chapter, Wolfe will move to his definition of cultural Christianity and its societal good, something that, when left to the most basic of terms, I agree with. He will also begin to lay the groundwork for some of the specific policy points of cultural enforcement in his Christian nation, many of which I wholeheartedly disagree with. Therefore, this is a good juncture to present my sum assessment of the doctrinal, ethical, and sociological foundations of his theory.

First and foremost, Wolfe has completely disqualified himself as an expositor of Reformed theology and doctrine. He has previously identified himself as a member of the Presbyterian Church in America on Twitter¹ and, until recently, his profile listed him as “Presbyterian”, so it is safe to assume that he is at least currently a member of a conservative Presbyterian denomination. As a former member of the PCA, I am versed in its doctrine, based primarily in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms (I have a hard copy of the official PCA version in my personal library, which I have referenced in this book²). I have identified three points of incongruity or outright disagreement with core PCA doctrine which, though it would not necessarily disqualify him from membership, would at least preclude him from holding the position of deacon or elder in the church; both require a good-faith subscription to the confessional standards in a way that does not violate core tenets. This would mean, from his own church’s perspective, he is unqualified to teach doctrine. These doctrines are so core to Reformed belief that they make up three of the five main points by which most characterize that Calvinistic theological tradition to which orthodox Presbyterianism belongs (Total Depravity, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints).

• Though he claims others lack understanding of the doctrine of Total Depravity, Wolfe wrongly believes in prelapsarian aspects of our nature that are “not altered by the gospel”, meaning they are fine just as they are. This is a direct disagreement with his church’s core teaching that we are “wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body” (6.2), and that “we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil” (6.4).

• He disagrees with more non-negotiable church doctrine when he says that man, by the striving of his human will “cooperates with grace”. This is totally incompatible with our radically corrupted condition described in chapter 6 of the WCF, as well as with the doctrines of Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints found in chapters 3 and 17, respectively. God actively dispenses His Spirit to not only bring about belief in Christ, but to continually cause the redeemed to “will and work for His good pleasure” (Philippians 2:13). This “depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election” (17.2). As shown above, we are “utterly indisposed” to do so on our own.

If Wolfe was to agree with these core doctrines of his church, the entire basis for his theory would fall apart, because it stands and falls on his postulations on prelapsarian man and certain, natural goods not being altered by the fall (he has admitted this himself). His doctrinal justifications for a civilly enforced, Christian nation are dead on arrival. This would not necessarily be the case if he was arguing from a Methodist or Catholic perspective, but he has explicitly titled his theory “Presbyterian Christian nationalism”.

As for ethics, the case I laid out in chapter 3 proves that, at the very least, Wolfe is not disclosing his full, private views on ethnicity in his book and that he is using “culture” and “language” as a sort of get out of jail free card, whenever he brings up the topic of forging communities primarily on genetic similarity. He has exposed those views, likely unintentionally, through his promotion of 13/52, his concept of “psycho-sexual ethno-masochism”, his statement that society finds “the instinct to socialize and dwell with similar people… evil or pathological”, and his listed issues with “Western Man” that only make sense when applied in a context of White ethnocentrism (also as a phrase used in its full, white nationalist context by his podcast co-host). Due to the apparent connotations of these views, it is fair to wonder if he seeks out community based on what the average American would describe as “race”. Despite what some liberal works on the topic of Christian nationalism might say, I believe that the majority of conservative, American Christians would reject Wolfe’s views of ethnicity, now that the scattered pieces have been put together and his academic-linguistic cover has been removed. I have shown his theory’s core ideological similarities to traditional, American variants of nativism and ethno-nationalism, and the themes of harnessing the will of a middle-class under threat of losing dominance and using spiritual terms to discuss private property and homeland found in national syndicalism (a component of Spanish and Italian fascism derived from the concepts of earlier, proletarian labor movements). As he delves more into specific policy, the latter will become even clearer.

Lastly, his sociological assertions on the benefits of excluding the other are not only refuted by Scripture, but by scientific inquiry as well. While the idiom of too much of a good thing can be applied to modern, left-wing notions of globalism and the purposeful breaking down of societal norms, that does not abrogate the truth that our 21st century society sits on the benefits of at least two centuries of the deliberate tearing down of culturally exclusionary walls. His theory rests on the same fallacious belief held by 20th century authoritarian nationalists, that the excesses of Marxism and Bolshevism are not endemic to a particular, extreme strain of liberal democratic theory, rooted in the philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and first applied in the French Revolution, but that it is endemic to liberal democracy as a whole. Like his predecessors, he will now begin to make a case for throwing the baby out with the bath-water.

1

Stephen Wolfe @PerfInjust

@onsikamel @Rad_Sherwoodism @suzania @thefudgelist @jamesrwoodtheo1 @RedemTheTimes @tlloydcline I’ve lived in several places in the US. I’d say that my PCA church in Baton Rouge and the church I attend in New Jersey would seamlessly integrate in a political/cultural setting.

2. 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).