Review: The Case for Christian Nationalism

Conservative Christians today are sorely tempted to overreact to the leftist craziness out there.  Stephen Wolfe’s first book, The Case for Christian Nationalism, seems to me to be the most recent example.  Aware of a globalist push by “no borders” George Soros, or Klaus at the World Economic Forum, those on the right are lately making an over-wrought case for nationalism as a good thing.

 

Others have reviewed the whole book more ably than me, especially Kevin DeYoung and Brian Matteson.  Upon reading the introduction of this book, in which Wolfe summarizes his conclusions with some supporting arguments, I decided not to inflict over 400 more pages of it upon myself.  

 

Here are some reasons why.

 

1. Wolfe’s definition of nationalism is an odd tautology: it’s just what a nation does in its laws and customs (pgs. 9, 11).  This is a far cry from the common understanding of the term, which he says he won’t waste time addressing (26).

 

2. Wolfe argues that a nation’s totality of action for itself is what makes nationalism a good thing (12-13).  ALL actions in the nation are directed to the good of the nation.  The mother nurses her child for the nation.  This is both ominous and closer to the popular understanding of nationalism.  Not to be incendiary, but it frankly sounds like some of Hitler’s rhetoric.  For Christians, national loyalty takes a back seat – we are raising our children for Christ before we do so for the nation.

 

3. Wolfe asserts that his theological assumptions are “widely shared among Christians” (18), and cites “Who Is My Neighbor?” by Dow/Achord.  I have reviewed this book and believe its inferred assertion of isolationism and quasi-kinism is widely REJECTED by Christians.  Separately, Wolfe also asserts natural law from a Thomistic understanding, linking it with Reformed thought, which is highly controversial and not assumed truth at all today (17).

 

4. Speaking of Thomas Aquinas, Wolfe follows him in asserting that grace perfects or restores nature.  While this is partly true, it is also true in important ways that grace goes against fallen nature.  Galatians 3:28-29 tell us there is no longer Jew or Greek, slave or free, we are one in Christ.  Grace transcends nature.  We don’t just go back to what feels natural (natural affections is the term, now), and assume that is God’s moral law.  Nature needs sanctifying and fixing; it is not a reliable guide for our moral compass.

 

5.  Wolfe takes this quite far, asserting that grace does not “critique” the natural desire to dwell among a similar people.  “The natural inclination to dwell among a similar people is good and necessary” (24).  This is again an overreaction to leftist insistence on diversity.  The development of the NT church in Acts radically contravenes Wolfe's thesis, showing a godly, new diversity which God’s people needed to welcome.  Think of the church in Philippi, with the Roman jailor and devout Jewish Lydia, in the same congregation.  Lest you think I’m just “mixing categories” of church and state, realize that the Gospel should have an effect on nations, such that people don’t insist on mixing only with their kind politically, because of the Gospel and verses like Galatians 3:28-29, Ephesians 2:14, and Colossians 3:11.

 

6.  Another overreaction regards Gnosticism.  The Gnostic impulse would urge that physical particularities, like language, custom and place make NO difference – the identifying marker is the spiritual principles to which one holds, only.  Wolfe and many on the right today are overreacting against that, giving physical characteristics TOO MUCH weight.  Being a man, as we experience that naturally, instead of a woman, comes to define your Christianity.  No, Scripture and the Spirit need to supernaturally shape a man’s unique make-up and desires.  With Wolfe’s nationalism, forming the nation according to its particularities defines Christian culture.  Take this too far, and it results in Roman Catholic syncretism with various cultures: "This is how Americans, or South Americans, ARE, so the church needs to adapt to that.  Respect their culture."  Sometimes, but the Gospel disciples (shapes) the nations to its mold.  We don't insist on keeping the physical particularities of our national identity, if they are hindering the Gospel.

 

7.  Finally, Wolfe advocates for a “Christian prince,” a magistrate with the power to correct the church’s errors.  His argument is poor: “The Christian prince can, in principle, remove error and reform the visible church, because no error is actually in the visible church in itself, for no error can exist in the Kingdom of God” (32).  And the conclusion is patently false or Quixotic.  Who wants Joe Biden or Ron DeSantis telling the church what their errors are?  At what point will we have a governor or president we would trust to set the councils, cardinals, priests and pastors all straight?  This is building castles in the sky.

 

 

Wolfe does say some good things.  Here is a highlight: “Governmental and societal ‘neutrality’ are impossible and… secularism is pervasive and relentless.  It has evolved into a sort of pagan nationalism, in which bizarre moralities and rites are imposed upon all areas of life” (36).  This is an accurate diagnosis, but the book’s prognosis is riddled with problems.  He is on to something with his call back to the political order of early America, I think. 

 

What the church needs right now is not a greater focus on local place, nation, or physical characteristics.  We need a richer understanding of the Gospel that permeates all of life.  That will lead to some focus on place, nation and the physical.  But it will be transformative of nature, not hidebound to it.  It will lead us to love the stranger among us, and to transform our civic and physical lives, rather than reverting to our natural desires.