Continuing to Critique Wolfe on Nationalism

“Here we come to Wolfe’s concept of the “nation,” which is left surprisingly ambiguous. We learn from Wolfe that the “nation” is not to be identified with the post-Westphalian nation-state,23 or with racial groups in the modern sense,24 but rather with “one’s own people-group” and “sharing . . . particularity with others.”25 Exactly what, though, demarcates one nation from another? The argument in this section unfolds at a dizzyingly high level of abstraction, with specific comparative examples in short supply. Wolfe acknowledges, to be sure, that “[t]he idea of nation is notoriously difficult to define”26—but more is required than the book provides. Surely, for instance, my college is not a “nation,” no matter how many of the phenomenological conditions for nationhood (similar customs, similar backgrounds of residents, common sense of place) it possesses.”

John Ehrett
Was Nietzsche Right?
American Reformer

1.) I have been saying this ever since I read Wolfe’s book and listened to his interviews so naturally I like it when people agree with me. Let’s be honest here, this is the only criticism of Wolfe’s book that is needed to demonstrate that it is not a serious work on Christian Nationalism. If you can’t or won’t define what a nation is then any musings on Nationalism of any stripe is just so much hooey. This is the first indicator that Wolfe’s book isn’t really a serious work on Nationalism.

2.) A second indicator that Wolfe himself isn’t really a serious Nationalism scholar is seen in a Tweet is pushed out some time ago.

“Isn’t it interesting that neo-Calvinists emphasized improving what is earthly but never mentioned the improvement of the body.”

Now, keep in mind that Wolfe takes pains in his book to promote his Natural Law Bona Fides at the expense of neo-Calvinism. Wolfe desires to ground his vision (such as it is) in Natural law theory and so neo-Calvinism has to go.

This is all well and good and understandable given Wolfe’s persuasion. However, the Tweet above is just not true and a scholar would not have shoved that Tweet out since a scholar would have known that one of the leading neo-Calvinists (Bavinck) of the 20th century wrote a long section in his “Reformed Ethics” on the necessity to improve the body.

Part B. Our Duties toward Ourselves

18. General Bodily Duties to Self
&36 General Duties (Self-Preservation)
&37 Duties toward Bodily LIfe
19. Basic Necessities of Bodily Life
&38 Food and Nourishment
&39 Clothing
20. Bodily Duties to Our Souls
&40 Our Duty to Life Itself
&41 Attending to Bodily Life in the Seventh through Ninth Commandments
&42 Duties toward the Soul

3.) Wolfe’s book on Christian Nationalism is more Rorschach test than it is a scholarly work on Christian Nationalism. I have said that repeatedly since I read the book and it is with pleasure that I notice a recent reviewer of Wolfe’s book has said the same thing.

“As a result, I anticipate that Wolfe’s book will prove to be a Rorschach test.”

John Ehrett
Article Critiquing Wolfe

I understand that there are those who desperately desire a path so as to return to a healthy Christian Nationalism. Dr. Stephen Wolfe’s book, with its Thomistic nature vs. grace Natural Law paradigm does not provide that path. What Wolfe has done for us in this publication is to make it clear that Thomistic thinking remains a non-starter when it comes to philosophy of any kind. It has also made it clear that presuppositionalists who are chomping at the bit for Christian Nationalism are, at best, only going to dine with the Thomistic Natural Law guys, with their version of Christian Nationalism with a very very long spoon.

Author: jetbrane

I am a Pastor of a small Church in Mid-Michigan who delights in my family, my congregation and my calling. I am postmillennial in my eschatology. Paedo-Calvinist Covenantal in my Christianity Reformed in my Soteriology Presuppositional in my apologetics Familialist in my family theology Agrarian in my regional community social order belief Christianity creates culture and so Christendom in my national social order belief Mythic-Poetic / Grammatical Historical in my Hermeneutic Pre-modern, Medieval, & Feudal before Enlightenment, modernity, & postmodern Reconstructionist / Theonomic in my Worldview One part paleo-conservative / one part micro Libertarian in my politics Systematic and Biblical theology need one another but Systematics has pride of place Some of my favorite authors, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Tolkien, Chesterton, Nock, Tozer, Dabney, Bavinck, Wodehouse, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Schaeffer, C. Van Til, H. Van Til, G. H. Clark, C. Dawson, H. Berman, R. Nash, C. G. Singer, R. Kipling, G. North, J. Edwards, S. Foote, F. Hayek, O. Guiness, J. Witte, M. Rothbard, Clyde Wilson, Mencken, Lasch, Postman, Gatto, T. Boston, Thomas Brooks, Terry Brooks, C. Hodge, J. Calhoun, Llyod-Jones, T. Sowell, A. McClaren, M. Muggeridge, C. F. H. Henry, F. Swarz, M. Henry, G. Marten, P. Schaff, T. S. Elliott, K. Van Hoozer, K. Gentry, etc. My passion is to write in such a way that the Lord Christ might be pleased. It is my hope that people will be challenged to reconsider what are considered the givens of the current culture. Your biggest help to me dear reader will be to often remind me that God is Sovereign and that all that is, is because it pleases him.

5 thoughts on “Continuing to Critique Wolfe on Nationalism”

  1. Regarding the first point:

    It’s true, the definition of “nation” Stephen gives isn’t crystal clear. But I suspect that was intentional, and perhaps not for the reasons you might think.

    I think Stephen knows what a nation is—he knows it isn’t just about beliefs, or “values,” or culture, or language, etc., etc. But “conservatives” lose their ever-loving minds the second you even IMPLY the r-word.

    Stephen correctly recognizes that we do need some support from this large group of evangelicals who call themselves “conservative.” This book is an attempt to bring attention to political attitudes they likely have not previously encountered and get their gears turning.

    I think it has succeeded in that regard—he’s reached a far larger audience than he would have been able to reach if he were to write exactly what I think about such things. And I think it has shifted the evangelical Overton window to the right. At least people are discussing what makes a people group a nation. And some of those people will get it.

    1. Until we can say the R word out loud there will be little any real traction.

      Even if you’re right, Wolfe needs people like me pushing the envelope so that we have a banner of bold, unmistakable colors and not one merely comprised of pale pastels colors that are easily mistaken.

      Please don’t think me ignorant of the why behind Wolfe’s methodology. I just don’t agree with it. The reasons that Dr. Wolfe isn’t pinning the curly tale on the pig is because he thinks that to do so will scare people away.

      I say, people who will be scared by that are never going to come our direction anyway until the smoke has cleared and the battle has been won. Better to let the chips fall where they may and get on with the project.

      Why is it always conservatives (so-called) who think they inch towards change. Cultural Marxists seldom use that methodology.

      1. Agreed, we do need people like yourself who are willing to be bold, crystal clear, and push the envelope.

        My hope is that we can funnel people to the Right–you and Stephen would both be part of that project, but speaking to different (although overlapping) audiences.

        Maybe that is unrealistic–maybe we’d have more success if Stephen presented a more on-the-nose argument with a more explicit nationalism. Maybe the normie-cons won’t respond any better to Stephen–you may be right.

        But even if Stephen’s method is wrong, I see him as a friend, not a foe, in this fight.

      2. Hello Evan,

        Thanks for your ongoing polite dialogue. I hope I can be as polite.

        The only thing I might disagree with you on your latest comment (and the jury is still out on this) is whether or not it is possible for presuppositionalists to be friends with the Thomists who are pushing this Nationalist agenda via Natural Law theory.

        It is true that we both desire Christian Nationalism. However, it is also true that the methodology that each are using to get there are diametrically opposed to one another.

        The same is true if we apply this to evangelism. Both Thomistic Natural Law theorists and presuppositionalists want to see people converted and come to know Christ but neither are going to admit that what the other is doing is “evangelism.” In the same way I know the Thomists say they want Christian Nationalism but if their Thomism is the price that would have to be paid to get Christian Nationalism I would not be willing to pay it.

      3. Thank you Bret, I really appreciate your willingness to engage.

        When it comes to Thomism vs Presup, I admit I need to study more and think through the implications of each–I don’t know where I stand. There are guys I highly respect in each camp and guys I strongly dislike in each camp. I’m quite familiar with the positions, it’s just wrestling through what the implications are and how it works out in practice.

        I’d like to think they could work alongside each other for common ends, but that might be blissful ignorance.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *