
The Case for Christian Nationalism by Stephen Wolfe is published by Canon Press.
If you are nice, you can simply say that I am a bit slow. You might say that I am stupid, ignorant, dense, gullible, or (again, being nice, say I am somewhat undiscerning).
[Quote from a recent Facebook post where the commenter rightly labeled me as an ignoramus:
Language is the natural realm. God’s image is the spiritual realm, consisting of spiritual knowledge, righteousness, and holiness (Ephesians and Colossians). God’s image was eradicated at the fall. Do your homework. Calvin, Luther, Owen, Ursinus. Ignoramuses of the 21st century insist that fallen man retains the image of God.]
The Case for Christian Nationalism has proven to be a controversial book. Even many who regularly read and approve of Canon Press publications have shaken their heads sadly because this book was published. The book reviews have included some really strong denunciations of the book, the author, the publisher, and even others who are associated with the author.
I only stumbled across a few of these harsh reviews. I don’t recall reading any of them in full. As best I remember, I was reading and hearing these concerns back in November and December. There were also Facebook reading friends who had high praise for the book. Seeing that the heat was being turned up, I acquired a review copy.
I did not go back and read any reviews, praises or jeers, before beginning this blog post. Sometimes, I read a review and realize that I have completely misunderstood the book. Sometimes, I conclude that the reviewer misunderstood it. Most of the time, I reckon it is a case of simply coming to different conclusions, for whatever reason.
I also had the experience of hearing two of my deep thinking children express concern about the book from just seeing it on my reading stack and seeing the title. They say that you can’t judge a book by its cover (wrong!), but certainly you can judge it by its title. That doesn’t mean that the judgment is correct.
Here are my thoughts on this book:
- This is a long, deep, and weighty book. That may sound like a trite, shallow observation. The book weighs in at 475 pages. (Lots of Christian books are shorter with more breezy prose and large fonts.) This book is, therefore, a serious Christian work. It is also heavy laden with footnotes and sources with extra material adding to or clarifying the text. Again, this book is not a bedside late evening read for a few minutes of mind-unwinding before sleep.
I read from it during my morning reading time. This was to help insure that I was mentally alert (strong coffee was always present.) Because I read from two or possibly three books each morning, I only read a small portion of each. That means that I was often reading only ten pages a day. It took me from January to March to finish this book. (There was at least one break in the morning routine when I read a shorter book during those months.)
This was heavy lifting for a morning read. This book is a scholarly tome. A serious, deep study. And it is anything but a political screed by a angry right-wing MAGA hat wearing, NRA gun-toting redneck. Whether the book is “right or wrong,” whether the arguments are politically sound and/or Biblically supported, this book is not to be dismissed as a rant.
2. This ain’t my first rodeo. I first encountered books exploring the relationship between Christianity and politics in the mid-1970s. I was a college student who got sidetracked by stepping unexpectedly into a mysterious world called Calvinia.
I was taken hostage by a host of Calvinist thinkers who James Jordan described in his essay “The Closing of the Calvinist Mind.” Before Calvinism, I thought Christianity was about smiling, being nice, going to Sunday school, and not cussing. Reformed theology smashed my flimsy religious cart to pieces. I never recovered from the injuries, and like Jacob (in Genesis), I still walk with a mental limp. (Praise God!)
The men I was reading were Christians, scholars, “conservative.” skeptical of government, dogmatic, and dismissive of the trends of the day. These authors included R. J. Rushdoony, Gary North, Greg Bahnsen (who will later become a personal friend), C. Gregg Singer, Gary DeMar, Gordon Clark, J. Gresham Machen, Cornelius Van Til, Francis Nigel Lee, and others.
A bit later in the process, I read some of the political conservative writers of that era. These included William F. Buckley, Jr., M. Stanton Evans, Russell Kirk, James Burnham, and others. I was, to no surprise, a big Reagan supporter. I was sympathetic to the Moral Majority and the labors of Jerry Falwell and others, to mobilize Christian voters. I found some affinity for books by Peter Marshall and David Manuel, such as The Light and the Glory.
What began as a few books connecting American history and politics to Christianity became a tidal wave. There were whole shelves full of light, easy books that proclaimed America’s Christian heritage and its decline from its foundations. But there were some more serious books that emerged dealing with the same concerns. I swam in both rivers, although the first was a bit shallow (with authors quoting the same often doubtful anecdotes) and the latter was a bit deep and treacherous.
I have longed for books that have grappled with some of the extreme seriousness of applying Christianity to the social order. For those who dismiss this, I will talk with you later, but until then, recognize that there is always some theological/philosophical system that defines our social and political lives.
3. “Nationalism” is a bad word! “Patriotism,” while also a bad word, is not as bad. Words, politically related to politics, come to have connotations that blur out the original intent or meaning of the ideas. I have a vocabulary that includes some bad political words, such as Fascism, Naziism, Socialism, Communism/Marxism, Totalitarianism. Some words are bad during certain time periods. Hence, calling President Andrew Jackson “King Andrew I” and calling your own political brand “Whigs” was supposedly clever terminology in the early 1800s. (Or not so clever considering the poor track record of Whig politicians–the only two men they elected to the Presidency both died in office.)
The terms “Liberal” and “Conservative” are loose fitting words that mean totally different things in a wide political survey. (And the author of the book in question distances himself from the label “Conservative.”)
“Nationalism” denotes (but doesn’t exclusively mean) a degree of fanaticism, extremism, megalomania, and even racism, It hints of National Socialism, anti-immigrationism, nativism, white supremacy, and other deviant political ideologies.
The mention of any arranged marriage between Christianity and the state gives people tremors over a state church, witch hunts, heresy trials, and an inquisition.
Stephen Wolfe goes to great pains to carefully define what HE means by Christian nationalism. He writes,
“Christian nationalism is a totality of national action, consisting of civil laws and social customs, conducted by a Christian nation as a Christian nation, in order to procure for itself both earthly and heavenly good in Christ.”
Wolfe painstakingly fills in this definition and applies it to political settings. He appeals to historic examples, older political treatises (often by Christian authors), and current conditions. He does not advocate or promote a take-over, a January 6 action with the necessary fire power, or any kind of insurrection or coup d’etat. He is neither Bolshevik or Menshevik in his game plan.
We know, just from watching all of the sound and fury since the overturning of Roe v. Wade last summer that political change in the United States is a slow, incremental process. Whether there are actual gains for Christian positions is debatable.
There are a few lines here and there in the book that could be used as tinder to strike up a flame of insurrection. That is also true of the Declaration of Independence and most political documents. The book has to be taken as a whole.
4. I think this book calls for some serious group study. I didn’t absorb enough in one reading. I may have misunderstood large portions. I need to study many of the authors, such as John Calvin, Henry Bullinger, Samuel Rutherford, Althusius, and others who are cited in the book.
The shrill responses to this work (which I will read after I finish this review) need to tone down their frequency and give serious responses. I admit to having few or no sympathies with those who object on the basis of a Two-Kingdom Theology. But they can whet their appetites on this work if they wish. I am more interested in the more conservative, Reformed, politically acclimated scholars who can legitimately point out some flaws in the logic, applications, and arguments of the book.
5. For others who are in the same boat as I am in: There are some good political studies out there. I admit to still liking Francis Schaeffer’s Christian Manifesto from the past and from Mark David Hall’s Did America Have a Christian Founding? and Glenn Sunshine’s Slaying Leviathan in more recent times. But if you can bear down for a long serious read, The Case for Christian Nationalism is an outstanding study.
