Interrogating Dr. Stephen Wolfe & His Book, “The Case For Christian Nationalism” VI

I.) “The fear of ‘human autonomy’ in determining suitable law, which some corners of Protestantism today voice, is misplaced.”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe

The Case for Christian Nationalism — p. 269

This is a breathtakingly amazing, naïve, and jejune statement. Does Wolfe live in the same culture I live in?

II.) “Spiritual unity is inadequate for formal ecclesial unity.”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe

The Case for Christian Nationalism

I would bet my retirement fund that 90% of conservative clergy would viciously disagree w/ that statement.

III.) “Taking dominion is not an adventitious duty or a divine positive command. It proceeds from the very nature of man, and so it cannot be rescinded, even by God, without violating the fundamental nature of man. The right to rule creation as vice-regents is derived naturally and necessarily from divinely granted majesty.”

Stephen Wolfe

The Case for Christian Nationalism — p. 53

Well said!

Which is to say that dominion taking by the sons of Adam is an inescapable reality. It is never a question of “will you take Dominion” but only if you will take dominion badly or well.

IV.) “Supplying a set of laws, in my judgment, only feeds into the tendency of Westerners to retreat to universality, whereby people look for something outside themselves to order themselves concretely. A people need the strength, resolve, and spirit to enact their own laws, and they should not seek some ‘blueprint’ they can rubber-stamp into law.”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe

The Case for Christian Nationalism — p. 264

WOW! For sure no Christian people would ever want to look outside of themselves to order themselves concretely. What was Alfred the Great doing when he gave the people the Book of Doom as a law code? Clearly, the Book of Doom was a sad example of a Christian people wanting to be ordered by a law outside of themselves.

No people should look to God’s ‘blueprint’ as a template for their law but instead should look inwardly to their own resolve, strength, and spirit?
How is this not pure humanism. I almost want to ask how this is not blasphemy.Keep in mind that Dr. Wolfe here is giving the backhand to Theonomy which does indeed insist that God “supplies a set of laws,” that should be implemented in every Christian culture while at the same time conceding that all Christian cultures will not look universally alike since it will inevitably be the case that different cultures will understand the principle of the general equity of the law differently. Yet, despite those very real differences each culture will rightly be understood as a “Christian culture” all following God’s law standard.

When Wolfe writes about, “A people need the strength, resolve, and spirit to enact their own laws,” all I can hear is the lisping of the serpent saying; “hath God really said?”

Look, we need to realize that despite all the good things Dr. Wolfe says in his book, in the end he really is opposed to Biblical Christianity as demonstrated by this quote.

There is no predicting from page to page what Wolfe will say. No consistency. I can peg thinking to pragmatism, Thomism, squishy conservatism, Lutheranism, and yes, some Reformed thought. It is a pick and choose approach. Dr. Wolfe gives us a “total package theology.”

V.) “Christian homeland is a mode of true religion; it directs you to your ultimate home. Thus, serving one’s Christians homeland is serving the Kingdom of God.”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe

The Case for Christian Nationalism — p. 179

So, here we stand and applaud Dr. Wolfe.

I think if I spent a year reading Wolfe I would become bipolar or suffer from multiple personality disorder. It is amazing how one man can be so right and so wrong at the same time, as in one volume.

Doug Wilson, Crosspolitic Podcast, the CREC, and a Ohio Republican

In an interesting and happy confluence of events that really makes the point well that Doug Wilson, Crosspolitic podcast, and the CREC in general are out to lunch when it comes to the ability to properly analyzing our cultural moment we find a happening in Ohio recently sticking out its tongue at Doug’s insistence that Jew malice (left undefined) will not be tolerated as combined with Crosspolitic’s recent podcast starring Nate Wilson, Chocolate Knox, and Aaron Wrench where we hear that the Jewish question (JQ) must not even be discussed because it is so uncivilized, nekulturny and frankly, “not pleasing to Jesus.”

Then in God’s wonderful providence what should happen but a Republican Congressman in Ohio decides to denounce a fellow Ohio Republican for being “bigoted,” because a fellow Republican tweeted on Tuesday that  there is;

“no hope for any of us outside of having faith in Jesus Christ alone.”

Congressman Miller’s exact words to his fellow Republican Marbach were;

“This is one of the most bigoted tweets I have ever seen. Delete it, Lizzie,”  “Religious freedom in the United States applies to every religion. You have gone too far.”

Miller, having not yet clearly communicated his position also posted on social media;

“God says that Jewish people are the chosen ones, but yet you say we have no hope.”  “Thanks for your pearl of wisdom today.”

Now the kicker for the CREC types out there is that Ohio Republican Congressman Miller who condemned the above statement is Jewish. So we find someone with political power condemning Christianity 101 as being bigoted. Now, Congressman Miller finally did say “I’m sorry” and mumbled some words about his statement not being what he intended to say (Yeah, Right) but clearly all of this should be driving at least some conversation about the JQ. I mean if a Muslim Congress critter had said what Miller said can you imagine the response? Indeed Muslim Congress critters have said scurrilous things against Jewish people lately and there were all kinds of hue and cry to officially censor them in Congress. Why isn’t Dougie and the Crosspolitics guys and the CREC Doug wannabees declaring that we should not talk about the Muslim Question (MQ)?

But don’t quit reading because this JQ story gets even better. Sometime in the last 36 hours or so the Ohio Right to Life dismissed communications director Elizabeth Marbach from her position. Do keep in mind that it was Marbach who made the “disgustingly bigoted tweed about how being saved by Christ alone is our only hope,” to which Jewish Congressman Miller had so strenuously objected.

Did we mention that Jewish Congressman Max Miller’s possibly Jewish wife sits on the board of the Ohio Right to Life’s organization?
 

Interrogating Dr. Stephen Wolfe & His Book, “The Case For Christian Nationalism” V

“Pastors as pastors are no more competent to analyze or make civil law than any other person.”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe
The Case for Christian Nationalism — p. 275

We might first add here that while it may be true that Pastors as pastors are not competent to analyze or make civil law neither is it the case that, typically speaking, lawyers, legislators, nor politicians are likewise competent to analyze or make civil law.

The above is true now but it has not always been true. Indeed, in our now most pastors are  incompetents at both analyzing civil laws and shepherding their flock.

However, this should not be true today since the political/governmental jurisdiction is constantly now invading the ecclesiastical realm with their immorality and death dealing. Today Pastors should be equipped to analyze civil laws as interpreting them and so reading them through a Biblical grid.
We are at the point that neither the greater or lesser magistrates are going to help the Christian people/Church and so the principle of interposition has to fall to the Elders in the ecclesiastical realm to correct the legislators in the civil realm. As such the clergy need the ability to analyze legislation.

We should note that once upon a time the clergy did have this ability. Samuel Rutherford wrote the masterpiece Lex Rex and George Gillespie with him wrote the Civil Government section of the WCF. John Calvin, who was a law school graduate before theology, wrote most of the laws of Geneva, and a number of them are still in place today, and Geneva and the cantons have largely been peaceful and civil ever since. Many of the leaders in cause for American Independence were members of the clergy. Pastors in Puritan America were the most wise and educated people in the community. The fact that the clergy has fallen so far should not be used to excuse the necessity of pastors once again being competent.

Another point to be made here is that if would only give our clergy a thorough worldview training it would be a far less strenuous reach for them to analyze law since law is such a religiously oriented discipline. Once upon a time, pastors took it upon themselves to master the workings of the world to the best of their abilities in order that they might rise above it. Now they just believe whatever CNN tells them and focus on exclusive psalmody.

Let’s keep in mind that St. Paul said that the Church ought to be able to adjudicate in the affairs of this world;

“If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? 2 Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!”

II.) “Modern theonomy provided both a universalist alternative to prevailing visions and promised to reverse moral decay.”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe
The Case for Christian Nationalism – p. 269

1.) All who contend for any unique law order project are offering a universalist alternative. Indeed, Wolfe’s own plea for Natural law likewise offers a universalist alternative. There is no shame in offering a universalist alternative to paganism.

2.) Do keep in mind that Rushdoony, while eschewing movement Libertarianism, did advocate for a law order that was decentralized in terms of Governmental enforcement. This mitigates against Wolfe’s “universalist” accusation that suggests that Rushdoony was going to force Theonomy on the world.

3.) It is true that an acceptance of God’s law by a redeemed people would indeed reverse moral decay. Nothing else will. Certainly not Wolfe’s Natural law Humanism.

Stephen Wolfe’s book “The Case for Christian Nationalism,” is unlike any other book I’ve ever read in my whole life with its pillar to post statements. Sometimes I want to stand and cheer Dr. Wolfe. Other times I wonder where in purgatory he will spend time.

Interrogating Dr. Stephen Wolfe & His Book, “The Case For Christian Nationalism” IV

I.) “Since Scripture contains the natural law (in scripturated form), Scripture can and ought to inform our understanding of the natural law, the common good, proper determination for civil laws, and the means to heavenly life.”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe
The Case for Christian Nationalism — p. 262

Ummm… if Scripture contains natural law then why do we need natural law? In brief, if Natural law agrees with Scripture it is un-necessary. If Natural law disagrees with Scripture it is un-true.

I would like to take credit for that simple but brilliant insight but I learned it from the  Zacharias Ursinus;

“Furthermore, although natural demonstrations teach nothing concerning God that is false, yet men, without the knowledge of God’s word, obtain nothing from them except false notions and conceptions of God; both because these demonstrations do not contain as much as is delivered in his word, and also because even those things which may be understood naturally, men, nevertheless, on account of innate corruption and blindness, receive and interpret falsely, and so corrupt it in various ways.”

Zacharias Ursinus
Commentary on Heidelberg Catechism

II.) “Put differently, God has ordered man by a rule which he discerns what he must do and must avoid in order to achieve his ends.”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe
The Case for Christian Nationalism — p. 245

And here is all we need to read to realize that Wolfe’s worldview cannot be entirely trusted. This sentence demonstrates that the Natural Law types do not comprehend the noetic effect of the fall upon reason. It is true that Natural Law proclaims the will of God but what is also true that what the Natural Law types like Wolfe don’t get is that man’s reason is fallen and fallen man has an agenda to read wrongly what God is making known by General Revelation as contained in Natural Law.

Better to listen to Rushdoony on this score;

“Now, what does the Bible have to say on the subject? As we saw at the beginning, the Bible says nothing from cover to cover about a law of nature. It speaks about God’s law, for men and nations, God’s requirement in every area. Hs moral law, his civil law, his law for the church, his law for the family. It’s all God’s law, directly from God.”

Or, if one prefers Guillaume Groen van Prinsterer;

“Law is rooted in God’s essence. Apostasy means forsaking justice. For atheists, there are only natural inclinations, no natural law. Conscience and moral inclinations are merely weak reverberations of God’s Law, and wherever the latter is done away with, duty is replaced by pride and selfishness.”

Now some from the Natural law school will warn us here that. “we have to be careful here lest you accuse the entirety of Protestantism of never taking the effect of sin seriously.” However there is a proper response to this well intended warning and that is to note that historically Protestantism embraced a Natural law concept that could work in the context of a Christian people. Protestantism in its origins never paused to consider if Natural Law would work per their theories in a culture that was no longer described as Christendom.

We must keep in mind that there are as many Natural laws as their are different schools of philosophies. Can Natural law tell me which one of those contending Natural law theories is the right Natural law theory?

Nope … I’ve done my work here. Natural Law is a wax nose driven by the unstated presuppositions of those who are reading Natural Law.

God’s world does shine forth Natural Law but fallen man suppresses the truth (all truth) in unrighteousness except when convenient. This is what the Synod of Dordt teaches when it notes;

Article 4

“There remain, however, in man since the fall, the glimmerings of natural light, whereby he retains some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the differences between good and evil, and discovers some regard for virtue, good order in society, and for maintaining an orderly external deportment. But so far is this light of nature from being sufficient to bring him to a saving knowledge of God and to true conversion, that he is incapable of using it aright even in things natural and civil. Nay, further, this light, such as it is, man in various ways renders wholly polluted and holds it in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God.”

Two Other Comments On Wolfe’s Book By Dr. Schlebush & Dr. DeYoung

I.) “Given the fact that mainstream theologians have for so long used the gnostic premise of the supremacy of the spiritual over the material to justify the Neo-Marxist levelling of all social distinctions and natural hierarchies, Stephen Wolfe’s recently released book, The Case for Christian Nationalism is certainly a most welcome publication.”

Dr. Adi Schlebusch  

Rev. McAtee chimes in;

One thing that Wolfe does is he distinguishes his Natural Law from R2K Natural Law and that is a good thing though it does bring up the question of how Christians can have different Natural Law theories if we are all supposed to be ruled in our social order by a obvious to all Natural law. Wolfe’s Natural law theory reveals that R2K Natural law theory certainly is thoroughly Gnostic as it pertains to the common realm.

One thing is for sure is that the Grand-daddy of Christian Natural Law theory, Thomas Aquinas, would have gagged to death if he could’ve known what David Van Drunen, D. G. Hart, R. Scott Clark, T. G. Gordon, and the rest of the R2K cadre shirt tail hangers have done to his Natural law.

So, while we do not agree in the least with Wolfe’s Natural law theory we do say that it is far far less bad than R2K.

II.) “Christ’s chief concern in this age is with the church. While many institutions contribute to earthly life and human flourishing, Jesus didn’t promise to build any institution other than the church (Matt. 16:18). The impression one gets from The Case for Christian Nationalism is that the church plays merely a supportive spiritual role as part of a larger project that involves the civil realm ordering people to their complete good. Wolfe’s vision is nation-centric rather than church-centric.”

Rev. Dr. Kevin DeYoung (KD)

Online Article

 

1.) The problem here is not so much the ecclesiocentrism that KD is pushing as it is the fact that KD seems to think that Jesus building of His Church is somehow isolated in effect from the broader work of building His Kingdom.

2.) While KD is correct that Jesus did promise to build His church that statement can’t be isolated from Jesus last commission to “Disciple the nations.” How KD can cherry pick Christ’s promise to build the church while ignoring Christ’s command to disciple the nations is quite … curious.

3.) Consistent w/ #1 this sounds like KD is suggesting that Church and Kingdom are exactly synonymous so that Jesus is concerned solely with the Church. If this is what KD is going after than we strenuously object. While the Church is indeed Jesus primary concern it is a primary concern that impacts every other Kingdom as a fire warms the whole house. If that is true then KD’s severing of Church from other human institutions, which likewise belong to the Kingdom, is significantly inaccurate.

3.) KD misses the reality that when the Church is right then all else follows. As such it can’t help be the primary building block in a much large project. When the Church is ordered right. The nation, the family, and all other human institutions will likewise then be ordered right.

4.) KD’s comments suggest a dualism and hints that he is drinking at the waters of R2K, but any man who played the straight man for Tim Keller for so many years is someone who should be automatically viewed with suspicion.