The Case for Christian Nationalism

7. The Christian Prince | IV. A Divine Office

Apr 05, 2023

Previously:

Previously: As a collective entity, a nation has a collective will for its collective good. It must have a collective will, because the nation is a moral person, responsible for itself before God. (emphasis mine) Wolfe is absolutely correct here, though, as previously stated, if the nation is explicitly Christian then the nation is a…

a year ago · Blake Callens

The doctrinal content of the description of the prince’s “divine office”, in this section, is inline with 16th and 17th century, Reformed thought1; the monarch is God’s appointed authority on earth and was often written of as a little-G god, in that context. Calvin’s commentary on Isaiah 3 is quoted to make the case that “the palace of princes ought to resemble a sanctuary: for they occupy the dwelling place of God, which ought to be sacred to all”2. This is also consistent with that era’s Reformed thought, and not of great note, but something Wolfe ignores from the very same chapter of the commentary has far more significant applicability to his theory. A pattern is emerging where he selectively quotes ideas from Calvin he finds agreeable, as an appeal to authority/tradition, but ignores ideas in the same commentary that wholly contradict his philosophy; just two verses back, we find this:

There is nothing which men are more reluctant to allow than to have a yoke laid on them; nor do they willingly submit to be governed by nobles. Feeble and cowardly, therefore, must be the minds of those who obey delicate and effeminate men, and permit themselves to be oppressed by them; nor can it be doubted that God has struck with a spirit of cowardice those who offer their shoulders, like asses, to bear burdens. The power of a tyrant must indeed be endured, even by men of courage; but the reproach which Isaiah brings against the Jews is, that while they obstinately shake off the yoke of God, they are ready to yield abject submission to men, and to perform any services, however shameful or degrading. (emphasis mine)3

Calvin affirms that even “men of courage” must endure the tyrannical rule of “effeminate men”; this is very similar to the “gynocracy”, first mentioned later in this section and the same as Aristotle and Calvin’s gunaikokratia4 (the government of women). The book of Isaiah shows us that God is the One who enacts judgment on nations, and the prophet’s example is that of someone imbued with God’s Spirit speaking boldly in truth, while still submitting to His appointed authorities. Calvin’s beliefs on submission to tyrannical rule were based on exegetical insight. If Wolfe is not going to exegete, and use Calvin’s thought as his theory’s most cited biblical authority, then he must show, with Scripture, why he disagrees with any of Calvin’s exegesis; not the least being his consistent stance on submission to tyrannical rule, a sentiment shared with Viret. Appeals to reasoning of natural law will not suffice for Wolfe, because he has made Calvin an authority on God’s will. As mentioned above, when Wolfe does briefly attempt to exegete Romans 13, in chapter 8, I will show how his hermeneutic is terribly flawed; one of the tools I will use is Calvin’s exegesis on the same chapter.

The prince promotes national self-love and manly, moral liberty. he recognizes national sins but swiftly resolves them, leaving no license for exploitation or room for lingering self-doubt and the lack of national confidence. He encourages and channels the boldness and spirit of youth, while elevating the old and venerating the dead. He silences the social mammies and countenances the spartan bootstrapper. (emphasis mine)5

I want to be as charitable as I can, so I spent some time trying to find another context for mammy than the racial epithet for a stereotype of a brash house-slave and nursemaid. It is used for “mother”, without racial context, in England, but that makes no sense in the antagonistic context of Wolfe’s statement; besides, he lives in the American South. Given the context of other statements from him, both in his book and elsewhere (i.e., 13/52 and Which Way, Western Man) I have to conclude it likely that Wolfe used this word intentionally and with an understanding of its connotations.

In this statement, as a whole, we are given another Caudillo-like description of the prince. Wolfe pulls out all the stops, even saying that he “fights foreign aggressors” with θυμός (thumos), the Greek concept of an inherent spiritedness that is very much inline with the Nietzschian will to power themes in his theory’s prerational preference. The prince also has “a sort of divine presence or gravitas” (emphasis mine).6 When one compares these descriptions to how we traditionally describe America’s “great men”, it becomes clear that the Christian Prince is being propped up in a very different way; there is the myth we tell children that George Washington never told a lie, but would we expect grown men to speak of him in these terms? When we hear these very same sentiments broadcast by national adversaries, we easily see through them as ridiculous propaganda. Does North Korean state television not use this very type of imagery to describe the Dear Leader?

Also of note are the continued appeals to manliness; he is not only concerned with liberty, but “manly, moral liberty”, whatever that may be; “mammies”, beyond its racial context, is negative female language, while “spartan” is positive male; the prince will also “restore masculine prominence in the land”.7 This type of language is common among what may be best described as ultra-complimentarians, those who take Christian male headship of the home to extreme levels. It serves to fuel the opposition rhetoric of liberal Christian writers, such as Kristin Kobes Du Mez; her book, Jesus and John Wayne, is filled with so many repetitions and derivatives of the phrase, militant white masculinity, that one might mistake whole sections for conservative satire. I believe she wrongly categorizes a real issue in conservative Christian punditry that dovetails with Christian Nationalist circles, that of performative masculinity.

One often sees a concerted effort from ultra-complimentarians and Christian nationalists to portray themselves as exceedingly manly. They will regularly talk about how real Christian men go to the gym and lift weights, something I agree with as a principle for good health, not because doing so will make someone more authentically conservative or Christian. Stereotypical “masculine” props, like cigars and whiskey, are common; an anonymous Christian nationalist account on Twitter once strangely claimed I would not “feel comfortable sitting in a room having two fingers of Bourbon or a Single Malt with Phinehas or Nehemiah.”8 This was because I had used Scripture to show it is a sin for a Christian to make fun of the physical appearance of an ideological opponent (2 Timothy 2:24), as self-described Christian nationalist, and online personality, Adam Robles had just done.9 This is the other side of this group’s performative manliness, the shaming of those whom the practitioner deems unmanly. Robles is perhaps the most prolific in this behavior10, among his peers, but Wolfe will regularly make statements, such as, “Yes, losing the dad bod is Christian nationalism,” and “Best I can tell, all PCA [teaching elders] have the same body type.”11

Performative masculinity is fake masculinity; it is something insecure men do to project a strength they do not truly believe they possess - it is betas pretending to be alphas. Many of the most dangerous, well trained men I have had the pleasure of knowing were incredibly meek and kind in person, and often could care less about doing stereotypical “manly” things. One, whom I will call Matt, sticks out to me. He was a former marine in a rock band in Los Angeles, well over six feet tall and probably close to three hundred pounds of mostly muscle. Because of Matt’s stature, people would often challenge him to fights outside the venues we would frequent, even though he was always very down-to-earth and kind to everyone. On multiple occasions, I saw him knock out someone with very little exertion when they tested their performative masculinity on him; it was like watching a child fight an adult. One night, while we were all hanging out, sitting around a fire pit and playing guitar, I improvised a short comedy song about these encounters and how dominant he was in them, set to the tune of Ghost Riders in the Sky. Matt was visibly upset, and said to me, “I just wish people would see me for more than that.” I do not think I could have had more respect for that man, in that moment.

I believe that Christian nationalism, for many adherents, is a form of performative masculinity; believing themselves to be fighting a holy crusade, even if just online, makes them feel more dominant than they really are. This dominance (what I believe is often a perversion of biblical dominion) is perhaps something they wished they had in their daily lives, and joining a movement that offers a promise of a world where a civil government and state church would enforce such order - where a “great man” will “restore masculine prominence” - gives them a sense of purpose in a West that has truly devalued men, as Wolfe next discusses.

We live under a de facto gynocracy where masculinity is pathologized in the name of “fairness” and “equity.” To achieve acceptance or relevance today, men must become female-adjacent; that is, to adjust to toxic-feminine conditions of empowerment: sameness, credentialism, risk-aversion, victimology, and passive-aggression.12

There is truth in this statement; masculinity is most certainly considered a negative trait among Western elites, and some of the most underserved demographics in our culture are boys and young men, who are often told that their natural, healthy behavior must be suppressed. But overcompensation, through performative masculinity, which is what this subsection linguistically represents, is actually a weakling’s response; it is whiny talk and childish acting out. We do not need to bombastically hearken to “heroic masculinity”, the “greatness” of “powerful men”, or “commit[ment] to natural heirarchy”, while demonizing all things “equality”13; we simply need to affirm confident, Christian men. We need to be confident, Christian men; men who are not afraid to be meek and kind, because we trust ourselves and, even more, we trust our Savior; we need to be men who are confident in our eschatology, who place our treasure in the only place that matters, and who let that exude itself through our actions.14 We do not need wannabe warriors, we need elders.