The Case for Christian Nationalism

Introduction: The Great Renewal | III. Explicating the Definition

Previously:

The Case for Christian Nationalism

Wolfe defines Christian nationalism as a species of the genus of nationalism. He defines the genus as “a totality of national action, consisting of civil laws and social customs, conducted by a nation as a nation, in order to procure for itself both earthly and heavenly good.”¹ It’s quite interesting that he retains “heavenly good” in a definition otherwise completely stripped of religion (he will explain this in more depth later in the chapter as nationalism being conducive to orienting the nation towards general revelation). It points towards nationalism being seen as a divinely ordained mode of government. The continued use of “totality” in these definitions is very much inline with the wording of Italian fascist political theory; Mussolini used the word “totalitarian” in a positive context. Historian Philip Morgan wrote that the Italian fascist philosopher, Giovanni Gentile’s, “use of the term ‘total’ conveyed Fascism’s claim to ubiquity and a comprehensive, all-encompassing outlook on life, like a religious faith inspiring all facets of existence. Individuals only found full self-realisation through unity and identification with the state, which was not a neutral umpire of society but an ‘ethical’ authority embodying moral values and inculcating them in society.”² A similar “full self-realisation” through the supreme authority of the state, what Wolfe calls the “complete good” and the “nation perfected”, will be a major theme of his book.

Nevertheless, the Gospel does not supersede, abrogate, eliminate, or fundamentally alter generic nationalism; it assumes and completes it.³

This is a troublesome order of logic (Nationalism + Gospel = Complete Nationalism) in that it does not start with the gospel, and assumes the (incomplete) goodness of nationalism apart from the gospel. Would this not be better defined as Nationalist Christianity? There is very much a difference to be parsed here.

Whether my conclusions classify Christian nationalism under “ideology” has no relevance as to whether those arguments are sound.⁴

This is a fair point, because many would likely dismiss his arguments through an appeal to emotion, claiming that “ideologies” are bad, in of themselves.

The reader will also have to keep in mind that I am not necessarily affirming any supposed connotations of nationalism, whatever those might be, and thus they cannot be ascribed to my definition of positions prima facie.⁵

This is not a fair point, because “nationalism” has nearly a century’s worth of negative connotation that cannot be dismissed so easily. This is proven by how Wolfe felt he needed to write this sentence, in the first place. Wolfe follows this up by saying that he is not “trying to justify or explain away any historical example of nationalism,”⁶ but by expecting the reader to accept his definition of nationalism, and ignore the long list of historical examples, he is putting forth a no true Scotsman, and a nationalist version of the meme, “that wasn’t real communism”. As will be shown, Wolfe’s definition of Christian nationalism is no different than the common connotation of nationalism - but for the grafting on of Two-Kingdoms Theology, justified by a scripturally ignorant theory of pre-fall man - rendering this protest irrelevant.

We are given an explanation of “a totality of national action”, which, simply put, is any collective initiative that “strengthens, supports, or makes possible other actions to form an organic whole.”⁷ This, in of itself, can be totally benign. Issues have historically arisen, and atrocities have been committed, when a small group of individuals take it upon themselves to forcefully shape that totality in a direction even partially at odds with the national consensus. How would the totality of national Christian action be practically achieved when, as cultural researcher, George Barna, concluded, only 6% of Americans “possess a biblical worldview, and demonstrate a consistent understanding and application of biblical principles”?⁸ We are here breaking Wolfe's desired rules of engagement, by referencing social science - from a conservative Christian - to question the practicality of his political theory. I hope this proves how absurd his supposed prerequisite for debate is.

On “civil laws and social customs”:

Now, since the end of Christian nationalism is the nation’s good… rules of action are proper only if they conduce to the nation’s good… Being a totality of action, law and custom form an interrelated and oftentimes redundant web of obligation that orders everything ultimately to the national good. (emphasis mine)⁹

This is the elevation of nation over individual so common of early-20th century nationalist and fascist thought. As Georgia Priorelli wrote in Italian Fascism and Spanish Falangism in Comparison: Constructing the Nation, “In the opinion of the theorist of the Partito Nazionale Fascista… Fascism had the merit of having turned the relationship between society and the individual on its head. It replaced the liberal-democratic and socialist formula ‘society for the individual’ with the formula ‘the individual for society’. The change of perspective was total since, if the former raised the problem of individual rights, the latter prioritised the state’s right and the duties of the people and the classes towards it.” (emphasis mine)¹⁰

On the “Christian nation”:

Thus, the entity that causes Christian nationalism is chiefly the people, not Christian magistrates, though magistrates are necessary to direct the will of the people into concrete action.¹¹

This section is not terribly different from what a theonomist would write about a Christian nation, but Wolfe’s claim that the people legitimize the Christian nation flies in the face of his later justification of violent revolution to achieve it. In Western, representative government, a majority will of the people for an explicitly Christian nation would result in it coming to fruition through peaceful, democratic means.

On “earthly and heavenly good”:

Had Adam not fallen, the nations of his progeny would have ordered themselves to heavenly life.¹²

“Nations”, plural, is an assumption not based on Scripture, and could very much be seen as unscriptural, in that Jesus Christ, the Last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45), will rule over a single, redeemed nation for eternity (Revelation 21:9-27). So it goes that a hypothetical, never-having-fallen world would likely have a similar polity. This idea of nationalism being a prelapsarian ideal will be the focus of chapter 1, and will serve as the ethical basis for his nationalist theory. Wolfe has made public comment on the goodness of "cultural/ethnic preservation" of nations, through social pressure to restrict intermarriage, that cannot be separated from anything he may have to say on how these unfallen, and therefore godly, nations would perceive themselves.¹³

Thus, the totality of Christian national action orders the nation to procure the complete good in Christ.¹⁴

Whose interpretation of Christ (and his commandments) will be enforced? Wolfe will elaborate on this later, including an appeal for an official, paedobaptist state church, which would go against the doctrine of the largest Christian denomination in America, the Southern Baptist Convention.

As a concise summary, we can think of Christian nationalism as a Christian nation acting as such and for itself in the interest of the nation’s complete good.¹⁵

This section closes with another appeal to collectivism, with no distinguishing characteristics from previous nationalist theorists, whom he has asked us not to compare him to. He will later argue that this national interest requires a divinely ruling monarch, the banning of public worship of other religions, and the civil punishment of heretics. Wolfe’s hyper-priority for a homogeneous nation, above the individual, cannot be rectified with the Christian faith, where the disciples’s relation and responsibility to the nation must first pass through the individual, Jesus Christ. He distinctly calls us to place Him above all worldly relational obligations, markedly saying that someone who “finds his life” in those obligations will lose the true life we can have in Him (Matthew 10:34-39). A Christian church and nation are not healthy due to the power of their collective will, but because of the meekness of the individual believer’s commitment to demonstrate the singular will of Christ’s perfect love to others, one person at a time. To replace “society for the individual” with “the individual for society” is to consciously set up a form of “Christian” government that will inherently disfavor “the least of these my brothers” (Matthew 25:36-40).

Next:

The Case for Christian Nationalism

1. Stephen Wolfe, The Case for Christian Nationalism (Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 2022), 11.

2. Philip Morgan, Italian Fascism: 1919 - 1945, 1. publ, The Making of the 20th Century (New York, NY: St. Martin’s Pr, 1995), 79.

3. Stephen Wolfe, 11.

4. Ibid., 11.

5. Ibid., 11.

6. Ibid., 11.

7. Ibid., 11-12.

8. George Barna, “What Does It Mean When People Say They Are ‘Christian’?,” Cultural Research Center, Arizona Christian University, American Worldview Inventory 2021, no. 6 (August 31, 2021).

9. Stephen Wolfe, 13.

10. Giorgia Priorelli, Italian Fascism and Spanish Falangism in Comparison: Constructing the Nation, Palgrave Studies in Political History (Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2020), 4, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46056-3.

11. Stephen Wolfe, 14.

12. Ibid., 15.

13

Stephen Wolfe 🇺🇸 @PerfInjust

@dangibsonatty I think that, for example, an American Indian tribe can have a reasonable expectation that their people marry other American Indians in the interest of cultural/ethnic preservation. They should not forbid any marriage in particular but still seek a certain group-level outcome.

14. Ibid., 15.

15. Ibid., 16.