Dr. Stephen Wolfe has been one of those who has been loudly calling for a return to Christian Nationalism. No doubt, as many of my readers know, Wolfe even wrote a book on the subject. I am all for Wolfe’s desire for a return to Christian Nationalism. I have been advocating that long before Wolfe secured his Ph. D. in Political theology (or something down that line). However, the Christian Nationalism Wolfe desires is of a substantially different stripe than what I envision.
So, we are both for Christian Nationalism but as all ideas are embedded in larger worldviews and it is our worldviews that stand jabberwocky to one another. This post by Wolfe, as posted on X, begins to demonstrate our differences. I do cheer many conclusions that Wolfe champions but I cringe at the Worldview he employs in order to arrive at those conclusions. This fisking of Wolfe will reveal some of our differences and some of our agreements.
SW writes,
Another thing about this: NAPARC is talking a lot about political theology today, but in my estimation only a handful of pastors and theologians understand what Brandon describes in this article. They do not know the Reformed political tradition.
BLMc responds,
Here is the link to the article that SW references.
I have some problems with this article as well but responding to Wolfe here does not require me to respond to Brandon, though I may do that in the future. However, one point that needs to be made against Brandon — and it is a point that touches on Wolfe’s reasoning below. That point is that all Governmental arrangement come with an established church. No exceptions. Brandon, in the article linked above, argues for a return to Establishment churches (Stated funded churches) but one cannot return to that which one never left. Establishment churches are an inescapable concept. Currently, our Federal Government supplies vast funds to government (Public) schools and Universities. These government schools and Universities are now the equivalent of established churches and fill all the functions that established State Churches once filled when overt establishmentarianism between Church and State once existed. Government schools and Universities catechize our children, provide a priestly and prophetic function via the teachers, provide a local context where worship takes place as is seen in their adoration of the state from whence their instructions come. So, contrary to the labor of much of Brandon’s article there is no need to return to state Established churches. However, there is a need to change the Established churches the state currently supports.
So, given the above I’m not sure Brandon or SW understands the lay of the land when it comes to re-establishing Christian churches as those churches which the Magistrate overtly supports.
Secondly, concerning what Dr. Wolfe writes above we would agree that not many clergy understand the Reformed political tradition. Indeed, I would argue and have argued that we are at a lower ebb in clergy ability in the West than we have been in for decades and decades. I do concede that Dr. Wolfe understands the Reformed tradition when it comes to politics. Unfortunately, Dr. Wolfe and I disagree on the 20th century corrections to some of the earlier “Reformed Tradition.” More about that to follow.
Dr. Stephen Wolfe writes,
They still think that wanting a Christian nation means “theonomy” or “theocracy” or “postmillennialism” or “transformationalism”. They still think that “two kingdom theology” requires secularism. They are stuck in the debates of the last few decades. Many think they’re combatting something akin to “federal vision”–a “menace” threatening sound doctrine. That is false, of course. They are combatting classical Protestantism.
BLMc responds
1.) SW habitually focuses negatively in on theonomy, postmillennialism and transformationalism. This is because his worldview, like the R2K worldview, abominates theonomy, postmillennialism and transformationalism. Here we begin to get at the nub of the matter. SW does desire Christian Nationalism but he desires it as existing in a Thomistic Natural Law context which is at severe variance with theonomy, postmillennialism, and transformationalism. SW is in a tight spot here. On one hand he has to battle against those who share his Thomistic and Natural Law beginning points (Radical Two Kingdom theology) but who come to 180 degree different conclusions than what SW arrives at, while at the same time SW has to battle against those who share his desire for Christian Nationalism but who have zero interest in accepting the premises upon which his Christian Nationalism is pinioned. We will not give up Reformed theology in order to have compromised “Reformed” political theology.
2.) SW also misses a point here that is cheek by jowl with an observation I have already made. Given what SW says immediately above, it seems to be the case that SW believes that it is possible to avoid “theocracy.” However, given that established churches are an inescapable category, so it is the case that theocracy is likewise a inescapable category. All political arrangements, without exception, are theocratic. It is never a case of “if theocracy,” instead it is always the case of “which God shall rule.” All governments create law. Creation of law expresses morality and morality (right and wrong) is, without fail, an expression of some god or god concept. All governments are theocracies, though I freely admit that some governments (especially in a classically liberal political order) seek to hide the fact that they are hopelessly theocratic.
3.) When SW complains about many clergy thinking that all two kingdom theology “requires secularism,” he is at this point tilting at the windmills that is now routinely known as R2K. As I said above, Stephen is in a tight spot as he is taking on both R2K and theonomy/reconstructionism. The humorous thing here is that Stephen battles R2K he is battling with those who agree with him on the primacy of Natural Law but who read Natural Law exactly contrarian to the way he reads it. So much for Natural Law being perspicuous and so obvious.
4.) Here we begin to see why those who are the legitimate inheritors of the tradition of Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Clark, C. Greg Singer, Nigel Lee, Francis Schaeffer, etc. (as opposed to the”Libertarian theonomy” of North, Doug Wilson, A. Sandlin, Joel Boot, etc) are frustrated with SW. They certainly salute the idea of Christian Nationalism. They even salute many of the particulars that Wolfe supports. However, they choke at the idea of paying the price of accepting Wolfe’s Thomistic Natural Law worldview in order to have Christian Nationalism. It needs to be understood that if Wolfe’s vision of Christian Nationalism were to come to pass, it would only come to pass at the cost of giving up on presuppositionalism across the board. For most of us who have looked at both political theology of early Reformed thinkers as well as the political theology of presuppositionalism that is a price too great to pay. We agree with Wolfe that R2K sucks. Wolfe is convincing us that all expressions of 2K theology also sucks. The article linked above only confirms our suspicions.
It is becoming clear that there are more flavors of Christian Nationalism then there are Baskin Robbins Ice cream flavors. This reality is part of the problem in having a civil conversation on the subject. When one person says “Christian Nationalism,” ten people understand ten different conceptions of Christian Nationalism.
Is it the Christian Nationalism of Cromwell? Of the Antebellum South? Of Mussolini? Of Althusius? Of Bullinger? Of Lincoln? Of Uncle Adolf? Of Burke? Of the Reconstructionists? So many Christian Nationalisms… so little time.
Stephen Wolfe writes,
They are modern evangelicals on church/state questions. They are not Reformed. I’ve found that most pastors, theologians, and academics in NAPARC don’t care about the mountains of evidence in the tradition against them. But the laymen do care, and they are reading the old books, the venerable dead. More and more, the laymen will understand classical protestant political thought better than their pastors and teachers. And, in the end, denominational leaders–being obstinate in the face of evidence–will try to wield denominational authority against them. That is the future our leaders have chosen. But it’s not too late to choose humility.
Bret responds,
1.) Here SW plays the game that I suppose all the contestants in this battle royale play. Here SW desires to be the arbiter of what constitutes being “Reformed.” If one does not agree with SW one is running a couple quarts low of Reformed oil in his engine. Though, I must say I agree with SW that most Reformed pastors are not particularly Reformed on this subject. (Honesty requires me to admit that I don’t find SW to be particularly Reformed here either.)
2.) There is certainly a mountain of evidence that supports Stephen. Just as there is a mountain of evidence from Reformed theology that supports how the theonomist arrives at his political theology. Here Stephen admits he is a neophyte having confessed many times that he is no theologian. (Actually, Stephen is a theologian… a theologian in the school of Aquinas which was not particularly Reformed.)
3.) Finally Stephen appeals to the rise of the laymen. In history at various times there have been more than a few who counted on the laymen to overthrow the “expert class.” It has happened a few times. More often it is the expert class that divides with eventually one set overthrowing the other set and the laymen then follow. Speaking only for myself, I wouldn’t bet the house on a tidal wave of laymen becoming familiar with the original sources so as to overthrow the putative expert class. There will be a few laymen, but on the whole laymen have to work for a living while raising a family and that doesn’t allow for the time required to invest in the reading and studying. I spent the first 10 years in the ministry as a tentmaker and believe me when I tell you that it was difficult to keep up with everything that needed to be kept up with in the study.
4.) I do agree with SW that the denominations will try a power play to get their way. That kind of thing is seen quite routinely. Sometimes I think that nobody does tyranny as well as clergy. I’ll go a step further than Dr. Wolfe. I see a day coming when the splits that have begun in the “Conservative” “Reformed” denominations will accelerate to the point that more and more denominations will split off and be created. I think the name “Occidental Reformed Church” for a denomination would be grand. We are already seeing this phenomenon in micro. The RCA has a split off group. More than a few CRC churches have departed recently. The Vanguard Presbytery departed the PCA. The Bayly’s a few years ago created a phone booth denomination out of the PCA. I expect this kind of thing to continue. We are at a point where;