A New Birth of Fascism 

When Donald Trump was running for re-election as President, I noticed people start to talk about 'Christian Nationalism.' When I read their descriptions of the phenomenon, I was puzzled. They would describe certain ideas, such as that America is God's chosen nation and Trump is the Messiah, which seemed odd because nobody I know believed those things. So it was easy enough to dismiss the concept as a straw-man. But then people started describing themselves as Christian Nationalists, like Marjorie Taylor Greene. This straw-man grew veins, skins, and organs, until it began to stir and ultimately lurched out onto the world stage. Alas, it was a monster, a Frankenstein. Substantively it is warmed-over fascism. Stephen Wolfe wrote a book outlining the political theory behind it. Seems like there's money to be made peddling it, though, and so long as that is so, we are going to be stuck with it for a while.

First Amendment

According to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Congress cannot establish any religion:

These provisions are the bedrock foundation of American freedom and our hard-won liberty as citizens. It would be wonderful if they were uncontroversial; unfortunately, they are not. All that need be said to counter the ambitions of Christian Nationalism is, First Amendment. The whole thing is illegal. It's unconstitutional.

Our author senses, dimly, that returning to the usages of sixteenth century Geneva might upset a few people:

"Since my argument seeks to justify the political and social privileging or exclusivity of Christianity, questions naturally arise about the liberty of conscience, religious liberty, and religious toleration." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 34).)

Not to worry. Recall the legal principle, 'The devil himself knowest not a man's thoughts.' Mr. Wolfe is not criminalizing belief but only the expression of belief; unexpressed heretical thoughts remain legal. Our gracious Prince will magnanimously allow us serfs this much: "Civil law cannot command inward worship or belief, but it can suppress public blasphemy, heresy, and flagrant disregard for public worship among the baptized." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (pp. 262-263). That means you are free to engage in wrong-think,— because the government, of course, can have no idea you are thinking bad thoughts,— provided you never breathe a word of it. Slip up and here come the informants, the trial, and the prison sentence, because Stephen the First intends to revive heresy trials. Blasphemy, too. "Punishing blasphemy would certainly solidify a culture of pious speech." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 293).) If you read the newspapers you realize that the blasphemy laws in Pakistan, as elsewhere in the Islamic world, are an effective means of enforcing religious conformity, because Christian people are prone to saying disparaging things about Mohammed. In the New Asgard, critics of the Moscow cult could well be discovered to be blasphemers as well as heretics.

In suppressing heresy, the "Christian prince" is acting to prevent public harm:

"The classical Protestant position is that the civil magistrate can punish external religion—e.g., heretical teaching, false rites, blasphemy, and Sabbath-breaking—because such actions can cause public harm, both harm to the soul and harm to the body politic." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (pp. 34-35). Canon Press.)

Glory be, we can believe as light is given us; we do not have to conform our inward views to the heretical doctrines put out by cult headquarters in Moscow, Idaho. Oh, but breathe a word to one single soul of what we truly believe? Might as well go door to door like the Jehovah's Witnesses! Better not try it!

Separation of Church and State

The principle expressed in the First Amendment is two-sided. On the one hand it forbids establishment, on the other it guarantees free exercise. The former imperative can be summarized as separation of church and state. This is not a hostile formulation; it goes back to Roger Williams, an advocate:

In the New Asgard, there will be nothing of the kind:

The reasoning here, so far as any is offered, is that John Calvin and other Reformers of his tendency did not believe in religious liberty. This is undeniably true:

“'In vain,' writes Calvin, 'will the magistrate employ the sword, which undoubtedly he must employ, to restrain wicked teachers and false prophets . . . unless this sword of the word go before”. . .If these efforts fail and the heretic publicly persists, then the magistrate may take steps to punishment [sic] him.'”

(Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (pp. 387-388). Canon Press. Kindle Edition.).

The premise is beyond question true; John Calvin and his first and second generation followers did not believe in religious toleration. It can be asked what conclusions follow from this premise, for those of us who are not Calvinists? Erring men will err. No conclusion follows. We see the folly of following man-made religious doctrine in this pursuit. Scripture alone is our authority. Moreover, once his 'authorities' depart from him, he departs from them, with no regret, no looking backwards. As we will see, Mr. Wolfe wants to defend the right of an aggrieved minority to wage revolution. While defending resistance to tyranny, in the Western tradition, goes back at least to Harmodius and Aristogeiton, usually it is 'the people' who are said to reclaim their right to self-government, implying, if not a majority, at least not a small faction. His accustomed sources do not agree with him that there is any right to minority rebellion. At that point, he just drops them. As should we all; he will catch up with us in the end! When his views do not happen to conform to those of his preferred 'authorities,' he disregards them. So should we all. They are no authorities at all, either to Mr. Wolfe or to us.

The only remedy for heresy offered in the New Testament is ostracism: don't socialize with the heretic. So don't socialize with Stephen Wolfe. Problem solved! The entire form of this argument is an argumentum ad verecundiam, a fallacious appeal to authority. The author does not get his information from the Bible; he admits he has no competence to do that, and it isn't found there anyway. He gets it instead from John Calvin and his immediate successors, who are mighty poor authorities to be following. Of course it is a well-known fact that John Calvin did not preach nor practice religious toleration:

"Some readers will complain that I rarely appeal to Scripture to argue for my positions. I understand the frustration, but allow me to explain: I am neither a theologian nor a biblical scholar. . .Instead of drawing from Scripture to prove the Reformed system of doctrine, I’ve chosen to assume this system and work from it." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 16).)

The reader who believes the Reformed system to be in error will not notice any argument being made. Everyone already knows John Calvin and his successors drowned Baptists and burned Servetus at the stake (although Calvin himself would have preferred the more humane alternative of beheading). Back when they started this Calvinist resurgence some years back, who at the time ever said, 'You know what? This is going to lead in the end to renewed demands for heresy trials.' No one said it. But if someone had said that, he'd have been right. It's a good plan to flee from Calvinism as from the devil. The tortured death of Servetus is yet another good reason to reject John Calvin's false teaching:

You can watch these pocket Torquemada's in action on Twitter/X, if you have the time and inclination. William E. Wolfe, for example, is constantly coming up with new schemes for winnowing down an already shrinking denomination, the Southern Baptists. Is membership declining? Expel members who vote Democrat, that'll speed things up! From the time the Southern Baptists went big into Calvinism, they should have known that was the last time anybody would hear anything said about soul liberty or soul competency. It comes with the territory. Did Roger Williams say that forcing of conscience is "soul-rape"? John Calvin did not believe in religious toleration, and neither do his consistent followers.

This preference for a monocultural, monoconfessional nation did not start with the magisterial Reformers. It was not their original thought, drawn from the Bible or whatever other sources they returned to. This was the political consensus of the Middle Ages. Our author's argument may be summarized as, 'In the dark ages they burned heretics.  Therefore, so should we.' (In fairness to author Wolfe, he prefers to fine or imprison heretics, atheists, and other non-conformists, rather than burn them.)

There is a 'Cliff Notes' version of world history, in which the rise of religious toleration is brought into alignment with the 'Protestant Reformation.' Reality is more complex; the magisterial reformers were not necessarily in favor of religious toleration, any more than were their contemporaries in the Roman Catholic camp. Certainly John Calvin was not. They weren't in favor of heliocentrism, either! People who were taught the 'Cliff Notes' version of history might be surprised to discover how much it leaves out, including the names of most of the people who did actually argue in favor of religious toleration, the viewpoint which was ultimately successful. This overview of history is no more satisfactory than the fable that 'the Enlightenment' either wanted or brought about religious toleration. People who imagine that John Calvin and his immediate followers were a voice in favor of religious liberty might be surprised and disappointed to discover that they were not, but those who conclude 'therefore, religious liberty must be a bad thing' are piling error upon error; they are following men rather than God.

Thomas Aquinas did not believe in freedom of conscience any more than did John Calvin. However, the early church did. And so did the framers of the U.S. Constitution:

The United States government does not get to decide what is and what is not heresy or false belief. That determination falls entirely outside the purview of the government. This is not to say tyrannical governments have not usurped a power not rightfully theirs in other times and places; the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire did take it upon himself to tell his subjects how they might direct their footsteps to arrive at the desired destination, heaven, and millions no doubt fell into the pit by following the directions issued by this deluded, lost man. As James Madison pointed out, arguing against a religious establishment,

"Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation." (James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance, Section 5).

The government has neither ability nor calling to determine religious truth. Stephen Wolfe says that they can and should: "Since civil law can restrain murder, it can restrain false religion." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (pp. 369-370).) When governments have stepped outside their legitimate sphere, they have left the ground soaked with blood:

When it's brought to the attention of the cult centered around Moscow, Idaho that the U.S. Constitution does not permit a religious establishment or heresy trials conducted by the government, they try to get by with explaining that the founders did not want a federal ecclesiastical establishment, but had no objection to such an establishment on the state level. Oddly enough, this pretended drive for a federal established church has left no trace at all in the historical record. People in those days put a lot of energy, it would seem, into defending against something never suggested nor thought of. They must have had a lot of time on their hands. Or rather, to go by what they said they were trying to do, they were not responding to any felt political need of the moment, they were not putting out fires, but attempting to draft a general statement of human rights applicable to all times and peoples. Our author does not believe in any such thing, but the founders did.

Is it plausible that all that fuss in the First Amendment is really only to say they wanted the official state church to be founded and conducted on the state level, by state bureaucrats who were uniquely close to God, not on the federal level? Not really, given that when the people who believed in the Bill of Rights found themselves in a position to legislate for a state, they did not write legislation permitting a religious establishment but rather the contrary:

Some of the states did nevertheless have religious establishments which persisted for years. The Congregational establishment which persecuted Roger Williams limped on for years. Even during the founding, defenders of this practice had already taken on a defensive tone; they are already bargaining and compromising with the ultimately victorious advocates of separation. Doug Wilson and his acolytes think they can forge an alternative America by siding with the losers of American history: the Confederacy, the proponents of church establishment. But they lost, and properly so. They're looking for an America that isn't quite America that they can use for leverage to destroy the real thing. These dark, shadowy, almost-real reflections, the Confederacy, the Massachusetts state establishment that graciously allowed Roger Williams to attend the Congregational Church of his choice, will provide leverage, they hope, to shoulder aside the real thing, the free country that we know and love.

The U.S. Constitution is not self-enforcing, and neither are state constitutions. Conditions can persist for many years which are contrary to both spirit and letter if no one brings the matter to the attention of the courts. In New Jersey, near where I grew up, there was a town called Ocean Grove whose form of government was theocracy. The governing body was the Methodist Camp-Meeting Association. You can't have a theocracy in the United States! Of course you can't, but there it was. Up until the day it fell before the judge's gavel, this arrangement persisted. I suspect it was because the local police were so gosh-darn nice, that nobody got mad enough to sue. The anomalous persistence of existing circumstance proves nothing.

Our author proposes a religious establishment in every sense, including the expenditure of taxpayer dollars for establishing Christian doctrine: "The prince should also fund the ministry of the Word and provide schools for theological education." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 313).) He intends for the "Christian prince" to criminalize false doctrine: "The civil rulers, however, having only civil law to work with, legislate a negative—viz., criminalizing only what is false." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (pp. 368-369).) Does the Bible direct the state to ascertain religious truth and then criminalize the remainder? No. Our author does not get his instructions from the Bible, but from minor Calvinists of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, who 'reformed' some things, but retained the medieval social settlement.

The ideas our author is retailing, that heresy is soul murder and thus the heretic must be silenced for the public good ("heretical teaching, can harm the soul." (p. 361)), that the natural order of society is hierarchical, and that dissension is a mortal fault in states and thus states must strive to be monoconfessional, are the bread and butter of medieval political and social thought. Though foreign to the early church, these ideas became well established in the medieval period, resulting in the deaths of thousands of people, as in the Albigensian Crusade. Religious toleration, for its part, never lacked a witness, though its witnesses were themselves combustible: Jan Hus, for example, was burned at the stake in part for denying that heretics ought to be burnt at the stake. These intolerant ideas were not renounced by the leading figures of the Reformation who, to make matters worse, revived and reinvented Caesaropapism, though voices in the radical Reformation were already restoring the tolerance that characterized the early church. It is no mystery where these ideas came from, as our author himself explains:

Everyone already knows that the medieval church used to burn heretics, there's no new information here. The fact that they did so is no recommendation that we should follow suit. Our author is aware of where his intolerant views ultimately come from: "But since I pull mainly from the 16th and 17th centuries, in which Reformed theology was very Thomistic and catholic, many of my theological premises are widely shared among Christians." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (pp. 17-18).) He goes on to explain, "By 'Thomistic,' I mean that Reformed theologians in these centuries were heavily influenced by Thomas Aquinas." (footnote 15).

Anyone who believes that Thomas Aquinas was a scripture-only kind of guy has never read him. What Thomas sought to do was synthesize all human knowledge, from supernatural sources as well as observation, into one grand, over-arching Theory of Everything. His principal informant on matters of science was the pagan philosopher Aristotle, and thus geocentrism, impossibility of a vacuum, etc. The Scientific Revolution was not kind to Aristotle, bringing atoms and infinity into the equation. The sources of Thomas' political thought are not found in the Bible, but were rather dissenters from the Athenian democracy, such as Plato and Aristotle, who keenly perceived the weaknesses in this form of government, but saw none of the good. Plato's ideal state, as found in 'The Republic,' is totalitarian, and Aristotle worked for Macedonian royalty. Thomas deemed uniformity of belief essential to a strong and stable state. From Thomas who started the ball rolling with the theological defense of intolerance, our author traces the tendency through to the New England Puritans, who sent Roger Williams packing. He does not see any problem with that either, because they left Roger Williams free to attend the Congregational Church of his choice.

One can readily concede to Mr. Wolfe that he has his finger on the pulse of the Middle Ages, the golden hour of the rack and the thumbscrew. Roger Williams conceded as much:

"I readily acknowledge, as formerly I did concerning the testimony of princes, that anti-christ is too hard for Christ at votes and numbers; yea, and believe that in many points, wherein the servants of God these many hundred years have been fast asleep, superstition and persecution have had more suffrages and votes from God’s own people, than hath either been honourable to the Lord, or peaceable to their own or the souls of others. . ." (Roger Williams, The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience Discussed, Chapter LXXV).

He does not, however, have scripture and he does not have the testimony of the early church. Thomas and those who learned about these matters from him got this wrong. For that matter, he got heliocentrism wrong, and other stuff too.

Ancient Times

Our author is an 'intellectual' by the standards of the people he associates with. He is aware, not only of obscure minor Calvinists of the seventeenth century, but of Thomas Aquinas! Isn't that impressive? Would that his awareness went even further back. He is under the impression that democracy and equality date from the era of the French Revolution, as all in this group believe:

“After the January 6, 2021 riot, Christians leaders expressed dismay that our 'democracy,' which affirms universal 'tolerance' and 'pluralism,' was attacked by a mob that rampaged through the 'sacred halls' of Congress. Their commitment to these modern norms should not surprise us.” (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (pp. 4-5).)

In what sense are democracy and equality modern norms rather than ancient norms? The first century Philo Judaeus, a contemporary of Paul and Jesus, says nice things about democracy:

"But there are two species of cities, the one better, the other worse.  That is the better which enjoys a democratic government, a constitution which honors equality, the rulers of which are law and justice; and such a constitution as this is a hymn to God." (On the Confusion of Tongues, XXIII, 108).

"For the divine Word brings round its operations in a circle, which the common multitude of men call fortune. And then, as it continually flows on among cities, and nations, and countries, it overturns existing arrangements and gives to one person what has previously belonged to another, changing the affairs of individuals only in point of time, in order that the whole world may become, as it were, one city, and enjoy the most excellent of constitutions, a democracy." (On the Unchangeableness of God, Chapter XXXVI).

This is part of what it means to be a cult, and why people call the sect centered around Douglas Wilson in Moscow, Idaho, a cult. Douglas Wilson, reading Confederate apologist Robert Lewis Dabney, discovered that the abolitionists were inspired by the French Revolution (in reality they were inspired far more by the Bible than by investors in the slave trade like Voltaire). Ideas like democracy and equality must be evil, therefore, because they originated with the atheistic French Revolution. Democracy is an ancient form of government which had both boosters and detractors in antiquity, and religious toleration was neither preached nor practiced by the French Revolutionists. In the Muscovite reconstruction of history, the Dark Ages were the period when people really understood Christianity and were serious about its pursuit.

These ideas are basically just misconceptions; the American Founding Fathers were not inspired by the French Revolution, nor did they not really believe in their own clearly stated ideals. There are all manner of political ideas that are Biblically-based to some extent; if the Ranters and Levellers did not get their ideas from the Bible, where did they get them from? Of course not all ideas are equally valid or balanced. But at some point these historical errors set like concrete; the great man said it, so it must be so. The ignorance of the founder ceases to be correctible. The same thing happened with Charles Taze Russell and many others. So if Christian pastors should happen to lament the threat to democracy posed by the abortive insurrection of January 6th, we know they are bending to "modern norms." This is nonsense. The rule of law is not a modern norm. Cicero understood it, Moses understood it, Solon understood it.

One underlying problem with Doug Wilson and his disciples is that he believes God hates freedom and democracy. We have two major political parties in this country: the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. It is scarcely controversial, except among Neoconfederates, to describe our country as a democratic republic. We have a representative democracy, the country being too vast for participatory democracy as in ancient Athens. The United States is founded on these principles; we have fought wars to defend freedom and democracy. According to Douglas Wilson, however, and Stephen Wolfe, any such society as ours is structurally in rebellion against God, who prefers monarchy and hierarchy.

Is there guidance in scripture to decide the question between these people and patriotic Americans? Fortunately, there is. The ideal form of governance for the state is not really laid out in scripture. Various examples and experiments are found ranging from the voluntarism of the book of Judges to the Israelite monarchy to Nero's unwelcome tyranny. Is monarchy ideal? Tell it to Samuel:

"Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, and said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.

"But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.  And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.  According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.   Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and show them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.

"And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.  And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.  And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.  And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.  And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.  He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.

"Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; that we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles." (1 Samuel 8:10-20).

Rejection of their existing rather chaotic, albeit republican, form of government is taken as rejection of Gods' rule over them. The former system of government, an amphictyony, was found so unsatisfactory by the inhabitants that they begged to be relieved of it. But God liked it evidently, even though the monarchy under kings David and Solomon provided the Biblical type and pattern for the coming Messianic kingdom.

Certainly God is a King, and many of the Theobros' errors can be traced to the principle, 'If God can do it, so can we.' God is a master, so we, too, can hold slaves, John MacArthur explains. No doubt when the lesser lights of this movement shower the neighborhood with bullets, they are repeating, "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive..." (Deuteronomy 32:39). But they are wrong; they are not God, and so it is lawless murder when they do it. Or if they wish to argue otherwise, let them make something inert to be alive, as God does, and show us detractors our error.

Perhaps the moral of the story is that, yes, Christ is King, and those ambitious strivers who assign His titles and attributes to their own selves, like Charles III or the late Haile Selassie, are blasphemers and imposters. If Jesus Christ is king of America, as He must be in the hearts and minds of believers, can there be another, rival king? There is room for one, but no room for two, thus the revolutionary slogan: "No King but Christ." David and Solomon were beloved of God, in spite of their flaws, and there were other good kings of the divided kingdom, like Hezekiah. But that system of governance ultimately came to nothing, with Israel's national independence swallowed up in the Persian empire. The monarchy cannot be said to have been an unvarnished success.

But while the ideal form of governance of the state is left somewhat uncertain, the same cannot be said for the governance of God's own proprietary kingdom, the church. The governance of the church is specified: it is to be on the congregational pattern. Knowing that God prescribed democratic self-rule for His church, is it likely He despises this form of government in other contexts? How can they show such contempt for a form of government which God has sanctified by choosing it for His own polity? These people are simply wrong in despising their birthright as Americans:

Pilgrim's Progress

The Puritans are strange informants on the topic of Christian Nationalism, since by his definition they never lived in a Christian nation, finding themselves in a country where they had been residing only a few generations, if that. They were immigrants who deserted their native land, stateless persons, the way he tells it:

"Aquinas, following Aristotle, suggested that newcomers should not receive citizenship until the second or third generation of residence. This ensures that those granted civil fellowship have an intimate, natal connection to people and place." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 168).)

What can the Pilgrims tell us about intergenerational love binding itself to and expressing itself in a particular place? Not much, that wasn't their experience in life. They were sojourners, like the patriarchs of Israel. Ironically, the people he looks to to tell us how to be a Christian nation, never were themselves, inasmuch as they were lacking intergenerational ties to the land where they lived:

"Rather, the nation is rooted in a pre-reflective, pre-propositional love for one’s own, generated from intergenerational affections, daily life, and productive activity that link a society of the dead, living, and unborn. Concrete action—past, present, and future—which enlivens space to the benefit of generations, is what grounds the nation. Political creeds are ancillary or supplemental, but not fundamental." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 120).)

He quotes the Pilgrim governor Winthrop speaking in 1630: "He spoke these words to those who landed with him at Massachusetts Bay in 1630" (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 221)), all of ten years after arrival in the new world. Malcolm X used to say, he didn't land on Plymouth Rock, Plymouth Rock landed on him. But Plymouth Rock was just a rock to Governor Winthrop's forbears; it meant nothing to them at all, they never saw it, never tripped over it, nothing, never invested it with any meaning. It was a rock thousands of miles away; it might as well have been on the moon, for all they knew or cared of it. The Pilgrims were more like Abraham and less like our author. Did the Pilgrims lack anything essential to human happiness because their boots were still wet from wading ashore? I doubt it. But to him, it's got to be right there, not elsewhere: “The key to uncovering the nation in lived experience is the notion of 'place.'” (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 120).)

It's a good thing actually that the Pilgrims, strangers in a strange land, never heard his advice to immigrants: "The foreigner’s fundamental principle is conformity, to the greatest extent possible; they are not at home but guests in another’s home. . .The foreigner should mute his own customary ways." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (pp. 167-168).) They assumed rather that they were free to live according to their own lights, instead of cringing in subservience before earlier arrivals, as are we all in a free society. Had they made themselves into conformist, unremarkable Native Americans, we would not still be talking about them. Whatever rights the majority may have, they cannot send you to hell just because that is where they are going.

He reiterates his concept of place as essential for human flourishing in the American Reformer, even citing the song, "The Little Brown Church in the Vale," "Your love for your hometown, your childhood home, the little brown church in the vale, and the landscape of your homeland is an original good." (Stephen Wolfe, 'National Diversity in an Unfallen World,' American Reformer, November 1, 2023). God's preference for nomads, documented in the Bible, is inexplicable under this regime. When the Israelites wandered forty years in the desert, were they without God in the world, without any prospect for human happiness? They ate angel's bread (Psalm 78:25); they cannot have lacked an essential element of human happiness. Does it need to be said, if not Samaria, if not Jerusalem: "Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father.'" (John 4:21),— then neither is the little brown church in the vale a place of especial sanctity.

Our author's reasoning was employed by early critics of Christianity: "Yet Jesus, who won over the least worthy of you, has been known by name for but little more than three hundred years: and during his lifetime he accomplished nothing worth hearing of, unless anyone thinks that to heal crooked and blind men and to exorcise those who were possessed by evil demons in the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany can be classed as a mighty achievement." (Julian the Apostate, Against the Galilaeans, Book I, excerpted from Cyril of Alexandria, Against Julian). Or is three hundred years long enough to leave the patina of antiquity on the cross? Imagine how forceful the same argument was on Nero's lips, as he was torching the Christians whom he blamed for the great fire at Rome. At that time, the name of Jesus had been known for all of thirty years! Or maybe that actually doesn't matter at all. Maybe God became incarnate when and where He did, and length of tenancy sanctifies nothing. Julian, who was raised a Christian but left the religion in favor of pagan polytheism, chides the early Christians for not following tradition:

"How did the Word of God take away sin, when it caused many to commit the sin of killing their fathers, and many their children? And mankind are compelled either to uphold their ancestral customs and to cling to the pious tradition that they have inherited from the ages or to accept this innovation." (Julian the Apostate, Against the Galilaeans, Fragments, excerpted from Cyril of Alexandria, Against Julian).

Indeed, we should flee from "ancestral customs" that do not provide shelter from the wrath of God. If following "ancestral customs" is a natural law, then salvation is found in fleeing from natural law. The pagan Athenian system was just what this author wants, where everything was tied in together, and patriotism was the same as piety. Once the youth was examined and found to be of pure-blooded descent, he was made to take an oath:

"I will never disgrace these sacred arms, nor desert my companion in the ranks. I will fight for temples and public property, both alone and with many. I will transmit my fatherland, not only not less, but greater and better, than it was transmitted to me. I will obey the magistrates who may at any time be in power. I will observe both the existing laws and those which the people may unanimously hereafter make; and, if any person seek to annul the laws or set them at naught, I will do my best to prevent him, and will defend them both alone and with many. I will honor the religion of my fathers. And I call to witness Aglaurus, Enyalius, Ares, Zeus, Thallo, Auxo, and Hegemone." (Oath of Athenian citizenship, quoted p. 167, A History of Education before the Middle Ages, Frank Pierrepont Graves).

Honor the fathers' religion? No can do! Athenians citizens who converted to Christianity were oath-breakers at a minimum, because they did not honor "the religion of my fathers." Or if they did, they went right straight to hell. This whole approach does not come out of any form of Christianity in which the experience of the convert is taken as normative. Best for each jurisdiction to remain in their own lane.

Our author makes the totalitarian assumption that if something is worth doing, it's worth doing by the government. What falls within the government's purview? Everything, basically: "If something is natural to man, then civil government must provide conditions for people to freely and harmoniously pursue it. This includes suppressing the things that hinder man in achieving his full humanity." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 89).) Needless to say free societies are not built on this assumption. Something may be very well worth doing, like going to church and worshipping God, yet fall outside the government's sphere. But to him, the government, like the ever-enlarging amoeboid mass in the movie 'The Blob', comes to envelop the things of God and incorporate them into its program: "Indeed, the chief aim of Christian nationalism is ordering the nation to the things of God — subordinating the secular to the sacred in order to orient it to the sacred." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 105).)

Did King Uzziah find out the hard way that the priests' sphere is one thing, the ruler's another? Yes he did, but our author assures us that the "Christian prince" can correct theological error: "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." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 32).) He's not intruding on the church's sphere? Why no, because he's correcting error, and the church does not make errors. Make no mistake, this author wants to put Caesar in charge, navigating the ship: "Thus, this section justifies one essential part of Christian national action, namely, civil direction in true religion." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 181).) The government is to decide what is and is not heresy, and act to suppress heresy and false belief.

Some of the things he wants government to do, like guiding the culture, are simply better left to a free market operating unhindered, lest we end up with a National Endowment for the Arts: "Civil fellowship extends beyond a relation of production. It includes place-making, aesthetic judgment, conversations on contemplative things, expression of wonder, and ordered liberty (some of which I discuss in subsequent chapters)." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 63).) Should the government be involving itself in "aesthetic judgment"? No. No, and no. Under this eager little brownshirt, we will have, not only a National Endowment for the Arts, but a Ministry of Art, "The Christian prince should use civil power to ensure that the culture of his people reflects true religion." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 295).) Realize that, as Gamaliel and the Flushing Remonstrance put it, "Therefore that of God will stand, and that which is of man will come to nothing." (Flushing Remonstrance). The guiding assumption here, that government is omnipotent while the people are weak, is exactly backwards.

Not everyone will jump for joy at the chance to live in the New Asgard. Atheists and practitioners of non-Christian religions are not likely to be happy, because right off the bat they are second-class citizens not valued as civic equals: "To be a good member of the people, one must be a Christian (at least outwardly). . ." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 216).)

Of course, the carnal means proposed to be employed by this faction can produce nothing but outward conformance. But Paul says that what is not of faith is sin, ". . .for whatever is not from faith is sin." (Romans 14:23). This kind of grudging obedience, eye-service, is itself an offense against God, as the Bible clearly teaches. Roger Williams likens it to changing the clothes on a dead man:

"Accordingly, an unbelieving soul being dead in sin, although he be changed from one worship to another, like a dead man shifted into several changes of apparel, cannot please God, Heb. xi. 6. And consequently, whatever such an unbelieving and unregenerate person acts in worship or religion, it is but sin, Rom. xiv. Preaching [is] sin, praying, though without beads or book, sin; breaking of bread, or Lord’s supper, sin; yea, as odious as the oblation of swine’s blood, a dog’s neck, or killing of a man, Isa. lxvi." (Roger Williams, The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience Discussed, p. 109).

There is nothing more obnoxious to God than a show of religion without the substance: "Bring no more futile sacrifices; incense is an abomination to Me. The New Moons, the Sabbaths, and the calling of assemblies— I cannot endure iniquity and the sacred meeting." (Isaiah 1:13).

In the New Asgard, there is to be no question as to who is on the bottom, who is on top: "A Christian nation that is true to itself will unashamedly and confidently assert Christian supremacy over the land." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 242).) Atheists beware, though Seventh Day Adventists are not safe either: "We can expect a Christian magistrate, having this inscripturated clarification, to understand the most basic principles of man’s duty in natural religion and to know what clearly violates those duties, namely, (1) atheism, polytheism, and idolatry; (2) strange and profane rites; (3) blasphemy and sacrilege; and (4) profanation of the Sabbath." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (pp. 376-377).)

Practitioners of non-Christian religions will be treated like the dhimmis in medieval Muslim states. They are suffered to exist, provided they keep their heads down and their mouths shut: "Those who do not profess Christianity and yet actively proselytize their non-Christian religion or belief system or actively seek to refute the Christian religion are subject to the same principles outlined above. They are not technically heretics, but they are doing the same class of actions and, for that reason, are subject to the same process and punishments." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 392).) Our author is somewhat of a liberal compared to his sources, because he does not always seek the death penalty against heretics and false religionists; sometimes he will allow them to be dealt with by fines and imprisonment. Atheists, Sikhs, Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and indeed whoever is practicing a form of the Christian faith which is not acceptable to the Torquemadas of Moscow, Idaho, will learn to keep quiet about their beliefs. Equal protection under the laws is unknown in the New Asgard: "Non-Christians living among us are entitled to justice, peace, and safety, but they are not entitled to political equality. . ." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 346).)

Fundamental Error

Stephen Wolfe's book is published by Canon Press, Douglas Wilson's family-owned vanity press. Incidentally, can someone explain to me why Canon cannot afford to hire a proof-reader? The reader trips at sentences like, "The reader has likely asked himself, 'Okay, but what we do now? How do we recover Christian nationhood? Where do we find this "Christian prince" you speak of?'" (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 433).) "What we do now"? They imagine their eager readers are asking author Wolfe and Doug Wilson for instructions on their next move, not saying to each other, as they might in reality, 'Call the FBI.' They are aiming at world domination and they say, "What we do now"? A fit response is, like Flip Wilson used to say, "Order in the courtroom, here comes the judge."

For one thing, lay the Bible aside. That says trust not in princes: "Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help." (Psalms 146:3). Are the princes maintaining vertical now? They will be horizontal later. Are they taking in breath now? They will not fog the mirror later. You trust in them in vain.

For another, put the Constitution aside. But this latest offering is not really even consistent with what this cult has been serving up heretofore. Stephen Wolfe wants to see nations differentiating themselves into unique cultures. Certainly the law codes they adopt play a role in this process of differentiation and evolution. I don't personally know anyone who wants to see one world government, but one group that comes close is the theonomists, who want to see the whole world living under the umbrella of the Mosaic law. The allies he has found could not be more polar opposites to his views respecting universalism.

This new offering is not consistent with what has gone before in Moscow — they are supposed to be theonomists,  when they remember that they are supposed to be theonomists, as this author is not. Instead he says, “A people need the strength, resolve, and spirit to enact their own laws, and they should not seek some universal 'blueprint' they can rubber-stamp into law.” (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 264).) Rousas Rushdoony's great discovery, recall, was that Moses' law was just such a blue-print. But the group has not announced any course change. Veering this way and that is evidently the way they roll.

And overall the general tendency remains the same. Whatever is foul, whatever is seditious, whatever is anti-American, whatever is against the Constitution, this is what they prize. They are, as they always have been, opposed to democracy and the Bill of Rights. They claim these things were invented by the French Revolution. They perceive social conditions as they existed in the Dark Ages to be the Christian norm. Though the world looks at them and sees a small, misguided cult, in their own minds they feel that world domination is almost within their grasp, and democracy simply must go, on a day when ". . .that fundamental faith [in democracy] is rattled and abandoned in repentance." (Douglas Wilson, The Case for Classical Christian Education. p. 36):

They say that error begets error, and never was a cliché more vividly demonstrated than with this tendency. Douglas Wilson started off singing the praises of the Confederacy and lamenting the Union victory in the Civil War. Now these folks want to tell us that the King is our God. Speaking of the Bastille, this author says:

Wait, but surely they cannot mean our God! No, they do mean the Christian God. But Camus said it, not them. But they are quoting it as if such a claim could be meaningful! Could there possibly be a more alien principle to American democracy than the divine right of kings? It's hard to imagine. But, believe it or not, a lot of Douglas Wilson's political thought comes from this very source, the doctrine of the divine right of kings, which John Locke scorned so disdainfully. It's not good doctrine, it's not convincing doctrine, but this is what they claim the Bible intends to communicate on the topic of politics and social order. So why do these people cite it? Because they know nothing better. They have literally no idea where the political principles that underlay our Republic come from. Although sometimes a little sliver of light begins to dawn, and they breathlessly inform their critics that the principles of America's founding are actually Christian, as if it is their critics who need to hear that.

As far as they're concerned, it all came from the atheistic French Revolution. This they learned not just from atheistic historiography, but from their guiding light, Robert Lewis Dabney. This is not historical fact. They overlook the influence of Christianity itself on world history. Were the English rebels who beheaded Charles I trying to kill God? Not in the least; they had a more realistic, and Biblical, view of the state. In the view from Moscow, the time when people were really and truly Christian in their social relations was the Dark Ages.

It is part of human nature — our inheritance from tribalism — that people want to ascribe all good inventions to their own group, leaving the bad inventions to others. Those old enough to recall the Cold War will remember that, to hear the Soviets tell it, they invented, among other things, baseball and the internal combustion engine. Atheists, especially those among them who are Marxists, display the same tendency. The good things in the American political system, like democracy and the Bill of Rights, are theirs, by rights; they want to say religious liberty is their gift to us, via the Enlightenment. This would be more plausible if the French Revolution, which was undeniably their show, theirs and the Deists, had shown any tendency toward religious toleration, instead of packing Catholic priests onto boats and then sinking them. Perhaps this group actually has little to offer and the good things come from elsewhere. When Voltaire wanted to criticize the French government, he used a Quaker sock-puppet, in his 'Letters from England.' Real Quakers at the time were saying things much like that, and they did not get their ideas from either the atheists or the Deists, but from the Bible.

Throughout the Middle Ages, the peasantry were encouraged to believe their meagre and scanty lot was God's will. In support were offered Bible passages, like Romans 13, encouraging believers to resignation before the powers that be, whoever they are and wherever they came from. But once the Bible was translated into the vernacular, people began looking for the basis of the familiar social settlement in the Bible, and discovered that they could not find it at all. The productive land in Europe was owned by a small number of families to whom the serfs who farmed it were obliged to pay rent. Was this arrangement Biblical? To the contrary! Moses specifically criminalizes that system of land tenure. Where did it come from? It may be that the last warrior chieftain who conquered the place awarded the land to his lieutenants.

If society actually was to be Christianized, would this system have been chosen, or an entirely different one? This question convulsed Europe for generations, beginning with the peasants' revolts touched off by the new Bible translations. It is accepted as a given, by proponents of the divine right of kings, as by the social theorists of Moscow, Idaho, that the old system was the godly one, because it was hierarchical; the low man on the totem pole was way far below the guy on top. The good things that came out of all this ferment, the rediscovery of democracy, the concept of individual liberties, ought to be celebrated rather than rejected. There's nothing specifically atheistical about them and there is nothing godly, much less Biblical, about the prior system. You arrive at the toxic politics of Wilson and Wolfe, which came from Robert Lewis Dabney in the first place, by agreeing with the atheists that they invented freedom and democracy, and thereupon vowing to be rid of such compromised and ungodly things.

What are the political principles developed by the French Revolution? Were they good or bad, and were they in any sense foundational to the American Revolution which, oops, had occurred some years prior?

These people are in grievous error to think that this is where our form of government comes from. Did the French Revolution invent democracy, free speech, abolitionism, as they claim? The fact of the matter is that the French Revolutionists did not know what to do with Haiti; Napoleon tried to take it back. The tendency broadly known as the Enlightenment included in its ranks Christians, and also people who thought of themselves as Christian though their theology was sketchy, like John Locke and Thomas Jefferson, as well as Deists, and atheists. There was no Chinese wall surrounding  Christian political thought, and a dense interconnecting web ties up some of these loose ends, for example abolitionist Josiah Wedgwood belonged to the Enlightenment Lunar Society.

The truth is that anyone at all can share in the admiration of the stunning scientific achievements of that era while continuing to dispute about the doctrinal consequences of those new discoveries. If gravitation somehow makes Christianity unthinkable, why was its discoverer a Christian (though unfortunately not an orthodox one)? Nevertheless Marxist historians have sold themselves and others a bill of goods in trying to find abolitionism in an author like Voltaire, who believed in polygenesis and invested his money in slave-trading. The energy for abolition was coming from the Christian side, from groups like the Quakers though not only the Quakers.

Those old enough to recall the Cold War will remember that the rivalry between the United States and Russia extended even to rival claims of precedence in inventing things. The Russians claimed that they had invented the telephone, the internal combustion engine, and even the game of baseball. In a similar vein, the atheists tell us that, although they are few in number, they are the movers and shakers behind human history. Thus they concur with Confederate partisans like Robert Lewis Dabney that it is they who are really behind this nation's heritage of freedom, democracy, and religious liberty — that they were the first to discover that these were good things, and established them in the teeth of universal religious opposition. Thus these two counter-cultural, minority religious streams converge. Douglas Wilson and his ideological descendants inherited their historical paradigm from Robert Lewis Dabney, and proceed to 'prove' it by pointing to the atheists who think the same way. One hand washes the other.

The trouble is, it is really hard to make this derivation stick historically. Americans viewed the French Revolution at first with sympathy, then with bewilderment, and finally with horror. It was productive of nothing, certainly not on this side of the Atlantic, and not only because it's tough to make the time-line run backwards. Where you do see religious liberty in the world today, why trace it back to the French Revolution rather than, say, to Jan Hus, or even back to Tertullian and Lactantius? The French Revolution neither preached nor practiced it, and to this day the French do not enjoy liberty of conscience; instead they have 'secularism,' which means the government is free to issue edicts banning, for instance, the Islamic head-scarf, though such edicts serve no public purpose. But Dabney said democracy comes out of the French Revolution, and so they believe. Then, having stuck a fictitious and implausible derivation onto freedom and democracy, the Muscovites proceed to invoke the genetic fallacy: because American liberty's origin is so questionable, the thing itself must be rejected. This is the methodology known as 'Presuppositionalism.'

A wide variety of views on politics and society were expressed within the era that modestly called itself the 'Enlightenment.' If Marxist historians want to skim off all the good and assign it to Enlightenment rationalists, leaving what's left to revanchist Christians, this is not an objective procedure. The French Revolution, which instituted an idolatrous cult of reason and persecuted those who would not bow the knee to it, is not where we get freedom of religion from. They never even had it, nor understood it! What Americans celebrate as good: democracy, liberty, free speech, religious freedom — the Neoconfederates are convinced are bad things, wicked, evil, rebellion against God, which must be eliminated before America can be classed as a Christian nation. Everything we love, they hate.

Some of the time they hear of, or they themselves discover the Christian roots of our polity. Then they argue the opposite case with all the industry of a man sawing off the limb upon which he is sitting. Who believes that our liberties flow from the French Revolution? They do, as do atheist historians looking for comfort and support, not the rest of us. We have nothing invested in this shaky theory. Or will they adopt, for the moment, the contrary view, that Christians invented those things? What sense then can we make of their argument, 'Christians invented freedom and democracy, so therefore we must discard those things?' If they are good things, if they are Christian things, we should cherish them. Thus, some of the time, we learn from them that religious toleration is a cultural product of "Anglo-Protestantism." If so, why do they want to get rid of it?

This entire effort to subordinate Christianity to some imagined 'Anglo-Saxon' culture that existed somewhere, some time, ought to excite suspicion in itself. Never mind that, according to the U.S. Census, there are fewer self-described people of Anglo-Saxon ethnicity in this country than German-Americans, or Irish Americans, to say nothing of Hispanics. The description of (some) inhabitants of the British Isles as 'Anglo-Saxon' seems to have been invented in the first place to differentiate the English from the Irish, with whom they were locked in a death struggle for centuries, finally culminating in the Irish winning autonomy for Ireland, excepting the northern counties. The Romans knew Ireland was there, but never conquered it, and early abandoned Britain north of Hadrian's wall. The Anglo-Saxon invaders never knew Ireland was there, or so it is said, and never made any effort to conquer the place. Like most conquerors, they contributed their DNA to the surviving population, yet fell short of total population replacement. How to say British without giving a brotherly nod to the hated Irish? Say, Anglo-Saxon. Some people, at least, who live in England are Anglo-Saxon; certainly more so than in this country: "In England, the average citizen is 37% British, with a smaller Irish heritage of 20%." (The Belfast Telegraph, 'Genetic Map Reveals how British, Irish and European we Actually Are,' Allan Preston, July 29, 2016).

As they point out, the United States owes much culturally to England, the mother country. Legal precedents from the British common law tradition carry weight that no foreign law ever could; we speak English; students read British literature in school, not the Brothers Karamazov. When I listen to them, I start to wonder if I am the only person who was made to read Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay, 'The American Scholar,' in school. He says,

"Is it not the chief disgrace in the world, not to be a unit;— not to be reckoned one character;— not to yield that peculiar fruit which each man was created to bear, but to be reckoned in the gross, in the hundred, or the thousand, of the party, the section, to which we belong; and our opinion predicted geographically, as the north, or the south? Not so, brothers and friends,— please God, ours shall not be so. We will walk on our own feet; we will work with our own hands; we will speak our own minds." (Ralph Waldo Emerson, The American Scholar).

Not being a Ralph Waldo Emerson fan, I gave the matter no further thought until, hearing these people, the recollection awakened in me that, no, American literature is not a tiny rivulet in the great stream of Anglo-Saxon culture. It is sui generis, a new thing, because a great and mighty continent cannot be made to bow before a little island. But in the minds of some people, we do not hold the Bible in our hands and read it unfiltered; the Bible itself has somehow been taken captive by the Anglo-Saxons, pagans though they were when they conquered Britain, crafty pirates indeed: "Well, I will, perhaps, just to set some issues before us here, what I feel in common immediately with you is that I start with the biblical inheritance and my conservatism also immediately gets to the fact that it is within, in my case, a Protestant frame and an Anglo inheritance that is very much a British inheritance." (Al Mohler, Thinking in Public, A Conversation with Yoram Hazony). So to these good folks, we inherited the Bible from. . .Great Britain. Only, not the Irish part. I've heard of British Israelitism before, which is when you do the Black Hebrew Israelite thing, only with Anglo-Saxons. When you read the Bible, you must hear it through the pinched accents of a bewigged Anglican clergyman. Like, would it make sense otherwise?

The Bible exhorts us "today," "Today, if you will hear His voice: 'Do not harden your hearts, as in the rebellion, as in the day of trial in the wilderness. . .'" (Psalm 95:7-8). Whose today? Moses'? David's? Our own? The Bible says, today means today, you had to ask?: ". . .but exhort one another daily, while it is called 'Today,' lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin." (Hebrews 3:13). The Bible, you could say, is timeless. So if you want access to the Bible and evaluate that as a positive thing, why assume only certain esoteric historical portals are available to access it? Is it Calvinism? Is it the idea that this ideology went as far as it could go in the century beyond John Calvin, and can only decline thereafter; so if you want to know what the Bible says, you should study the minor Calvinists of the seventeenth century? Is it post-modernism? Are we assuming the intent of the author is inaccessible to us? Al Mohler is no figure of the lunatic fringe, but he takes a similar approach to our current author: if you want to know what the Bible says, read someone who lived millennia later and thousands of miles away. Who would know the Bible like the Anglo-Protestants?

The charismatics would say, you could talk it over with the Author. But say it not out loud. The Bible testifies of itself that it is not so hard to unravel: "For this commandment which I command you today is not too mysterious for you, nor is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will ascend into heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it." (Deuteronomy 30:11-13). It seems if you are looking for second-hand religion, faith at one remove, you need look no further than the Calvinists. But why outsource the task? If we must relegate the Bible to human history at all, and look for it, not up, but disappearing in the rear-view mirror, isn't first century Palestine a better resting place and depository than seventeenth century England? Why does seventeenth century England come into the conversation at all?

We are told that religious toleration is an Anglo-Saxon thing, not, say, a North African thing. Never mind that England is the very country from which the Puritans had to flee in order to find liberty to worship according to their own lights, and never mind that Maryland, founded as a haven for persecuted Catholics, initially enjoyed more religious liberty than did Puritan New England. The American founding fathers expressed themselves with a wonderful clarity. Efforts to define down what they meant, either by foreign neofascists like Yoram Hazony or domestic authors, cannot convince any who have read their words. They said what they meant and they meant what they said. Moreover, they were right.

Theonomy

Theonomists believe that the law of Moses was intended to be a universal law, applicable at all times and places to all people. Our author denies this: "I deny, however, that the civil laws in the Mosaic law are immutable and universally applicable." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 270).) Our author does not believe in universal law: “A people need the strength, resolve, and spirit to enact their own laws, and they should not seek some universal 'blueprint' they can rubber-stamp into law.” (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 264).) He explains that Mosaic law is one possible instance of law: ". . .it is one possible body of law. . . But it is not thereby a suitable body of law for all nations." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (pp. 265-266).)

It is strange that our author's efforts to market his magnum opus brought him to Moscow, Idaho, because the view that there should be one, singular universal code of law is not really a popular viewpoint nowadays, if indeed it ever was. It is a program without a constituency. There is, however, one group in the world today that wants to impose a uniform law code across all continents, peoples, climes, and languages, and that is the theonomists. Doug Wilson's cult are, or were thought to be, sometimes adherents of theonomy.

You might expect the theonomists would not much like this author, because he does not believe what they believe. But no. Some of them, at least, love him. Who knows why: because he owns the libs, maybe? There is no consistent adherence to any set of principles here. Is there some agenda behind this manifest inconsistency, or is this strictly one of those cults where, when you join, you must leave your brain in the jar by the door, and bite your tongue when the leadership wanders around in circles? You cannot be both for and also against universality in the law. A drive toward universality cannot be both the besetting sin of Western modernity and also the most noteworthy, and controversial, characteristic of your 'conservative' allies. Our author perceives the desire for a universal code of law, such as Mosaic law would be under the theonomists' interpretation, to represent a "retreat to universality," which has something to do with 'the West:'

"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." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 264). Canon Press. Kindle Edition.)

This idea of the Mosaic law as a universal law code isn't new. This tendency to 'universalize' which he decries, can't be laid at the door of modernity, much less of any 'post-war consensus.' The Judaizers Paul encountered seem to have had a similar idea. I would have to agree with our author, however, that this concept of a 'one-size-fits-all' law code is not well thought out. Nations are differently circumstanced and have different needs.

What's the 'or else' in this author's stark manifesto? National suicide: ". . .ultimately your people will self-immolate in national suicide." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 172).) We'll be 'replaced,' you see. Our author most emphatically is not a conservative, any more than is his mentor. To be fair, our author cannot be blamed that people try to mischaracterize his posse in this way; he admits, accurately: “We are not 'conservative,' nor are we 'traditionalist.'” (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 38).) Conservatives, in the American tradition, are people who believe in the Constitution, not people who want to shred it.

Honesty is a rare virtue in people of this tendency. During the Trump era, we have grown accustomed to hearing the repetition of lies so transparent no one could possibly believe them — like that Antifa did 1/6. Statements of this kind serve more in the way animals mark their territory than as anything that might be believed to have actually happened. So you do see people on Twitter who insist that a.) they are conservatives, and the people who disagree with them are 'Leftists;' b.) they agree with Stephen Wolfe, and c.) they uphold the Constitution, unlike some other parties who are imagined to despise the Constitution. But at a minimum, Mr. Wolfe's program involves shredding out of the Constitution the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the 19th Amendment. The 'no religious test' clause will have to go as well, because ". . .positive affirmations of doctrine can be conditions for civil office or for outsiders who seek residence, since these are voluntary actions." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 396).) When these people say that they support the Constitution, they mean no more than that there is theoretically some Constitution which they might be willing to uphold, though they want to see the downfall of the existing one with its guarantee of religious liberty. Better if they honestly say, 'we are not conservatives, nor are we patriots.'

Like the Bohemian Corporal of a bygone era, our author is a disgruntled military veteran. He notes, ominously: ". . .the prospects of continued domestic peace in the future is becoming unlikely." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 322).) According to these people, revolution is justified because we are under occupation:

"Christian Americans should see themselves as under a sort of occupation. . .The ruling class is hostile to your Christian town, to your Christian people, and to your Christian heritage." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 344).).

As noted, Mr. Wolfe's' book is published by Canon Press, the family-owned vanity publishing house of Douglas Wilson, who has been making terroristic threats of this nature for quite some time:

“H.L. Mencken once suggested a shrewd educational reform that has somehow not caught on. He said that there was nothing wrong with our current education establishment that could not be fixed by burning all the schools, and hanging all the teachers. Now some might want to dismiss this as an extreme measure, but visionaries are often dismissed in their own day. 'You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one . . .'” (Douglas Wilson, "Burn All the Schools," Blog & MA blog, November 1, 2018). This is the commonality, this is the point of agreement: they want to kill us all. They haven't made up their minds whether they want to impose a uniform, universal law code, or not, nor have they hammered out the rest of the details.

They do not see any need to obtain majority consent before bringing in their New Asgard:

"Another question is whether a Christian people, constituting a minority of the population under a civil government, can revolt against a tyranny directed at them and, after successfully revolting, establish over all of the population a Christian commonwealth. The issue here centers on whether a Christian minority can establish establish a political state over the whole without the positive consent of the whole. I affirm that they can. . .Therefore, if a Christian minority can constitute a secure commonwealth for true justice and the complete good, then they can disregard the withholding of consent by non-Christians. Non-Christians living among us are entitled to justice, peace, and safety, but they are not entitled to political equality, nor do they have a right to deny the people of God their right to order civil institutions to God and to their complete good." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (pp. 346-347).)

At this point, I suppose this is more a police matter than anything else. When you encounter loyalists to this tendency on Twitter, they keep a sharp lookout for "feds." This might indicate paranoia, or simply the government doing its job. There have been minority revolutions in the past; when the Bolsheviks took over in Russia, they themselves conceded that only a small percentage of the population subscribed to their view. But for many generations prior to that time, in Russia, under the autocratic Tsarist system, large masses of the people were politically uninvolved, as is not the case here. Can they possibly think Americans will give up our ancestral liberty without fighting back? And how can any of this be reconciled with Romans 13? Like so: "It follows from the text that since the powers ordained of God are only for good, no power ordained of God can command what is evil. . ." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 350).) In other words, the government is only the government if he thinks they're good.

This domestic Moscow cult, not only not fazed by their minority status, think besides it's OK to stage a revolution for the purpose of installing the true religion:

"National harm can include oppression against true religion, and thus the people can conduct revolution in order to restore true religion." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 34).)

. . .which is in the possession of, guess who. This development will undoubtedly bring an abrupt end to the otherwise common pastime amongst evangelicals of identifying the Moscow cult as heretics, because the worm has turned and now it will be the heretics schooling us on orthodoxy. The student of history will have noticed that the project of suppressing heresy by means of the police power of the state often ends up suppressing, not heresy, but rather those telling inconvenient truths in the face of entrenched power, like the Waldensians with their witness against a corrupt church. The heretics are, not always but often, the ones lighting the match, not those providing the fuel. Is this a bug or a feature for the heretical cult to which our author subscribes?

Years ago they had the Smith Act, which sought to criminalize, not only attempting to overthrow the government, which has long been a crime, but even advocating the violent overthrow of the government. This law was directed against the Communist Party at the height of the Cold War. As critics pointed out at the time, it was unconstitutional on its face. Though never overturned by the courts, its backers thought better of it and rescinded the Smith Act. If it were still in force, Stephen Wolfe would be in the slammer. Of what level of violence will these people, ultimately, be capable? I would expect a few school shootings, some stochastic terrorism, the occasional Ruby Ridge style stand-off. Success is not in prospect; installing a Presbyterian theocracy in a country with many more Baptists than Presbyterians is not easy. Undoubtedly we will read in the news of the occasional arrest of unsmiling young men packed into a Ryder van, and the occasional delivered dud bomb with a puzzled young man, his thumb depressed on the detonator, wondering why there is no boom. All I can say is, I hope they get them before they can harm anyone else.

No Place Like Home

Our author thinks people ought to be attached to their native place:

And personally I can't really think of what is wrong with the stay-at-homes (of whom Odysseus was not one), the folks who stayed in Ur of the Chaldees, tended their gardens and built up a sizeable acquaintance there. And after all, as the poet said, success is counted sweetest by those who ne'er succeed; perhaps it is the tempest-tossed who can best tell us what home means. The thing is, though, the Bible is not really interested in those people, but in the other people, the ones who set out from home:

As already noted, our author does not get his information from the Bible. Instead, he is offering a natural law argument, which, in practice, means you quote Thomas Aquinas. Even quoting Thomas Aquinas by itself would not be so bad; rather, our author uses a procedure of introspection, in which everything that presents itself to his imagination as desirable is approved as good, while what does not is rejected as bad. He is his own oracle, his own god. The Bible is not unaware of the stay-at-homes, but not so much interested in telling their stories. Every now and again the newspapers will run a human interest story about an elderly lady who died in the same house where she was born. It's not a bad story. But the Holy Spirit seems to be more intent on telling the stories of the people who were not so greatly attached to blood and soil that they couldn't go out from home at command:

"By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he would receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he dwelt in the land of promise as in a foreign country, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise; for he waited for the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God. . .These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For those who say such things declare plainly that they seek a homeland. And truly if they had called to mind that country from which they had come out, they would have had opportunity to return. But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them. . .They wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented— of whom the world was not worthy. They wandered in deserts and mountains, in dens and caves of the earth." (Hebrews 11:8-37).

What was Abraham's ". . .delight in dwelling among your people on your native soil" (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 155))? He just plain didn't have any, that's all. It is striking that the Bible is written for and about strangers and pilgrims, while this author writes for people who are tightly, securely, and solidly attached to their earthly home. This world is where his people find meaning:

"Our sense of familiarity with a particular place and the people in it—the sense of we—is rooted not in abstractions or judicial norms (e.g., equal protection) or truth-statements. Rather, the nation is rooted in a pre-reflective, pre-propositional love for one’s own, generated from intergenerational affections, daily life, and productive activity that link a society of the dead, living, and unborn." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 120).)

Abraham left his dead to bury their dead while he took off. When his wife died, he had to purchase a burial plot from the inhabitants of the land, not owning so much as a golf course to bury her on. If, as our author explains it, human beings are made to occupy dirt, then Abraham fell short of being fully human: "Christians are Christian human beings, made to occupy a piece of dirt in this world that they call home." (Stephen Wolfe, 'National Diversity in an Unfallen World,' American Reformer, November 1, 2023). Abraham had no heirlooms to treasure; he did not lovingly cradle Terah's favorite idol in his arms and take it wherever he went. A wandering Aramaean was our father. Our author himself seems to be aware that his values of attachment to kin and attachment to place that he makes central to ethnic identity are lesser, subsidiary values: "But since earthly goods by themselves do not constitute the complete, chief, or highest good. . ." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 187).) What are any of his attachment points but "earthly goods"?

So blood and soil uber alles. . .but Biblically, blood and soil aren't actually all that big of a deal. To our author, dirt is everything; he defines dominion as: ". . .to inscribe one’s will into a piece of dirt, to stand at its boundaries and with resolve say mine to both fellow man and the wild." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 462).). Our author's treasure is not so much on earth, as it is simply. . .earth. So our author chases his tail. Fascism in the end leads somewhere different than where the Bible leads.

Abraham was not a man after Stephen Wolfe's own heart. He was not the man who stayed at home and honored his ancestors, but the man who went out, the emigrant:

"But this man with a very few companions, or perhaps I might say by himself, as soon as he was commanded to do so, left his home, and set out on an expedition to a foreign country in his soul even before he started with his body, his regard for mortal things being overpowered by his love for heavenly things. Therefore giving no consideration to anything whatever, neither to the men of his tribe, nor to those of his borough, nor to his fellow disciples, nor to his companions, nor to those of his blood as sprung from the same father or the same mother, nor to his country, nor to his ancient habits, nor to the customs in which he had been brought up, nor to his mode of life and his mates, every one of which things has a seductive and almost irresistible attraction and power, he departed as speedily as possible, yielding to a free and unrestrained impulse, and first of all he quitted the land of the Chaldaeans, a prosperous district, and one which was greatly flourishing at that period, and went into the land of Charran, and from that, after no very distant interval, he departed to another place, which we will speak of hereafter, when we have first discussed the country of Charran." (Philo Judaeus, On Abraham, Chapter XIV).

He did just the opposite. But perhaps this is an Old Testament emphasis, outdated now that the people of God are established? Apparently not:

"And another also said, Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house. And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God." (Luke 9:61-62).

Not to say that all, or even most, believers will find it necessary to leave home to serve God. It is distinctly odd, however, that the very cult which tells people they ought to uproot themselves and move to Moscow, Idaho, also publish books stressing the importance of living on the very spot where your ancestors dwelt. Did they dwell in Moscow, Idaho, where not many people do live even today?

God is not commanding all to leave their natal homes; what would be the point in thrashing and churning the population like that? But He manifestly does not share this author's values. To go by the Bible, what this author thinks is bad He thinks is good and what this author thinks is good He thinks is morally indifferent. This project ought to be called Canaanite Nationalism rather than Christian Nationalism. If it is so desirable and so important to live in the house your grandfather built, why does God give the people houses they did not build?

“So it shall be, when the LORD your God brings you into the land of which He swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give you large and beautiful cities which you did not build, houses full of all good things, which you did not fill, hewn-out wells which you did not dig, vineyards and olive trees which you did not plant—when you have eaten and are full— then beware, lest you forget the LORD who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.” (Deuteronomy 6:10-12)

Somebody just doesn't get it. We worship a God who gave detailed instructions for making a tent in which to worship Him, not a cathedral: “For I have not dwelt in a house since the time that I brought the children of Israel up from Egypt, even to this day, but have moved about in a tent and in a tabernacle.” (2 Samuel 7:6). God did not have to choose a nomadic people to be His special people, His nation of priests. He could have chosen Canaan, He could have chosen Egypt. But He did not. He chose herdsmen, wandering Aramaeans, for His own. His priorities are not the same as this author's, but different.

In Celsus' attack on Christianity, rebutted by Origen, this pagan scholar brings up the occupation of the children of Israel, which was one not held in high esteem by Greek culture: "Those herdsmen and shepherds who followed Moses as their leader, had their minds deluded by vulgar deceits, and so concluded that there was but one God, named either the Highest, or Adonai, or the Heavenly, or Sabaoth, or called by some other of those names which they delight to give this world; and they knew nothing beyond that." (Celsus, A True Discourse). In his mind, this was no doubt an embarrassment, a difficulty for Christianity, going back to the patriarchs. The living God does not share this glittering culture's disdain for herdsmen; angels visit the shepherds to announce to them the nativity. In the nature of things, herdsmen and shepherds move around. Perhaps camped out under the clear desert sky, the people find monotheism more plausible than in the big cities, with their proliferation of temples and priests doing brand differentiation. In any event, this whole book is a colossal exercise in missing the point.

The stay-at-homes, meanwhile, evolved a religion that pleased them; it is called paganism. The ancient Athenians used to say that they were autochthonous. What that tongue-twister means is that they sprung from the very ground which they occupied. They didn't, but never mind; we're doing paganism. We don't read about autochthonous people in the Bible, because it is a book about strangers and pilgrims. The people of God are not autochthonous.

Given that we are a nation of immigrants and that we don't tend to stay in one place for very long, it's no wonder our author feels so alienated from the rest of us. I don't think scripture necessarily means to say there is anything wrong with the home-bodies, just that theirs is not the interesting story. The other one is. Since place is so important, indeed definitional for our author, one wonders whether nomadic herdsmen, or people who live in RVs, can be fully human in his eyes: “The key to uncovering the nation in lived experience is the notion of 'place.'” (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 120).) Your ancestors lived there, investing meaning into the place. But maybe they didn't. And how did Terah ever get to be “the dead ancestor channeling his love for the living.” (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 128).) He didn't, Abraham departed and that was that.

Our author revels in “. . .a kind of self-love in which one delights in the totality of himself—a totality that extends to people and place. One might appropriately call it 'complacent self-love.'” (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 155).) The Bible is maybe not the best place to look for such characters, though. Evidently, if you love yourself intensely enough, you'll of necessity come to love the ethnic group of which you find yourself a part. Ethnicity is of critical importance for this author. Unfortunately, however, he does not always define it clearly. Descent is certainly part of it — "The originating source for one’s affection of people and place is his natural relations—those of his kin." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 139).)

“My intent here is not to discount or dismiss the importance of blood ties in ethno-genesis—a dismissal that is fashionable, politically correct, and could save me some trouble. It simply is the case that a 'community in blood' is crucial to ethnicity.” (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 140). Canon Press. Kindle Edition.)

He seems to want to retain an element of deniability about this "originating source," though, and culture is also brought in. Of course, people like him want it understood their own group is the superior one, but what is that group? How is it defined? Who is the favored in-group, who is the disfavored out-group? He volunteered on Twitter "Anglo-Protestantism," and several of his acolytes have offered their own definitions; William Wolfe reprising "Anglo-Protestantism," while Megan Basham improvised with "Anglo-Saxon Protestantism." The Anglo-Saxons were heathen, not Christians, and Protestantism lay centuries in the future when they entered the land; but precision is not to be looked for from this crew. Our author quotes Machen celebrating "Anglo-Saxon liberty." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 433).) This, according to them, is the culture or ethnicity that the government should be promoting over other competing candidates.

In any well-defined category, presented with a particular case, the classifier can identify whether that instance belongs in the category or out of it. Who is, and who is not, an 'Anglo-Saxon Protestant'? Here the project comes unglued, because when African-Americans point out the obvious fact that they are not Anglo-Saxon, they are accused of racism. Only 9% of the American public checks the 'Anglo-Saxon' box. There are more German-Americans than Anglo-Saxon Americans. There are more Irish-Americans than Anglo-Saxon Americans. There are more Hispanic Americans than Anglo-Saxon Americans.

Why does this group deserve special governmental coddling and subsidy? They do not explain, so we'll never know. What we do know is that our author must live among those who are like him to be happy: ". . .man, by his nature, requires particularity and must dwell among similar people to live well." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 66).)  It is explained that Anglo-Protestantism has some unique tie to liberty, the very liberty they urge us to dismantle. Recall, culture is a component of ethnicity, for this author, but it also rests on a solid base of common descent. This vagueness seems intentional; it may be that the intended audience does not need these points to be spelled out, because they already know who is in the in-group and who is in the out-groups. because, alas, there must of necessity be out-groups: "An in-group, by definition, has out-groups—a distinction of us and them that excludes others." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 145).)

This book is a contribution to the growing library of grievance literature. The aggrieved group of people in this new ordering of oppressed groups is, guess what:

"That means that New America is relentlessly hostile toward you. . .The straight white male. That is the chief out-group of New America, the embodiment of regression and oppression." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 436).)

He sings the song of his people, whom he wants to free from oppression:

"If you are a white, heterosexual, cis-gendered male, then the world will not offer you any favors. Indeed, your career advancement depends on sacrificing your self-respect by praising and pandering to your inferiors who rule over you." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 464).)

Your inferiors? Um. . .

Does your Sunday School happen to have picture books laying around with illustrations of Jesus in them? Get ready for a visit by the religious police from Moscow, Idaho, who will burn the abomination:

Natural Affection

This author understands there to be no "Gospel duties" that will undercut our natural affection to kith and kin:

But plainly there could be such. The Bible says as much in so many words.

Certainly we are appalled when we see someone utterly lacking in natural affection. Some years back the Casey Anthony case was in the headlines. The jury was unable to deliver a verdict of murder; unfortunately the cause of the child's death cannot now be determined. It's a shame that the medical examiner could not testify as to exactly how the child died. I'm sure the jury would have liked to convict her of worse than they were able to, because she was certainly an unnatural mother. There is nothing good to be said about people lacking natural affection.

Our author objects to the concept that we owe an equal obligation to everyone walking around on the face of the earth:

“Christians will ask, 'Aren’t we called to love all equally?' assuming the affirmative answer is obvious.” (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 149). Canon Press. Kindle Edition.)

In reality you don't so much hear this from Christians as you do from adherents of Utilitarianism, a rival moral system. I agree with this author that this analysis cannot be correct, as it would imply we owe no more of a debt of gratitude to our own mother for bringing us into the world than we owe to the mass of humanity. This cannot be correct; one of the ten commandments specifically tells us to honor father and mother:

But our author errs in thinking Christians are not in fact called to love as the Father loves, who sends rain on the just and on the unjust. Author Blake Callens, who wrote a critique of Christian Nationalism, expresses it well: "It is not that we are constantly called to love all equally, but that at any given moment we may be called to love someone fully, as Christ loved us, though that person may be unfamiliar to us, or even if he hates us." (The Case Against Christian Nationalism, Blake Callens, p. 94). That really is a consequence of the Sermon on the Mount and it cannot simply be negated or ridiculed out of existence.

As noted, we do have duties to specific people; the Lord commands us to honor our father and mother, not somebody else's father and mother. But the idea that the Lord cannot lay on His people higher duties than those of nature is just this author's invention, as much of this material seems to be. Ultimately, Jesus is not all that interested in who your natural relations are; that does not determine your standing with Him:

“And a multitude was sitting around Him; and they said to Him, 'Look, Your mother and Your brothers are outside seeking You.' But He answered them, saying, 'Who is My mother, or My brothers?' And He looked around in a circle at those who sat about Him, and said, 'Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.'” (Mark 3:32-35, Matthew 12:49-50).

Even sinners reciprocate the kind offices of others: “But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.  And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back.” (Luke 6:32-34). If our highest calling is to obey nature and treat our benefactors kindly, then the sinners will beat us into heaven, because Jesus says they already do that; indeed, the house-cats will beat us there, because they respond to kind offices by the gift of a mouse dropped in your shoe; which, not to shame them, is the best gift they have to offer. The Lord is not saying you should treat those who have been good to you with a churlish ingratitude; to do so would be to act worse than the sinners and tax collectors. But He is pointing us to something higher, unsuspected by this author:

“For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so?” (Matthew 5:46-47).

You can and should be good to those who have been good to you — and what our author has never yet suspected, you can also be good to those who have done no such thing, and moreover you will be like God when you do that. Wolfe asserts,

"Since grace restores nature and natural law contains all the moral principles concerning social relations, the Gospel does not alter the priority and inequality of loves amongst those relations. A Christian should love his children over other children, his parents over other parents, his kin over other kin, his nation over other nations." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 101). Canon Press. Kindle Edition).

What a stark contrast with the scriptural instruction to "hate" father, mother, sister, brother! When those nearest and dearest are not hindering the kingdom coming, there's no grounds for animosity, and consequently for most believers the Lord's warning is somewhat abstract and hypothetical, a potentiality not a actuality, a worst-case scenario whose day never dawns. Most of us, thankfully, do not have to choose between our faith and our family, a stark choice than confronts converts in India for example. But we should be on guard against accepting this author's inversion of the Lord's paradigm, where instead of standing ready to cut all ties, we value the Christian faith precisely because it is the faith of our fathers. As is so often the case, this author is just on a different track than God's word. What is central to him is peripheral to scripture, while what is the main thing to God does not even show up on his radar screen. God ultimately is calling us to something higher than loyalty to kith and kin:

"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." (Matthew 10:35-37).

This entire Biblical theme is invisible to Mr. Wolfe, who says, “The fall did not introduce the natural instinct to love one’s own, and grace does not 'critique' or subvert our natural inclinations to love and prefer those nearest and most bound to us.” (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 118). Canon Press. Kindle Edition.) This is simply to disbelieve the Bible.

Gynocracy

Stephen Wolfe decries the "gynocracy" which he claims America has become:

The tendency to which this author belongs has long regarded empathy as a sin, not a virtue. Our author tends toward that view: "Sentimentality and untethered empathy are the modern killers of nations." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 204).) Not only is the desire for equality not peculiarly feminine, it is not even modern:

"But there are two species of cities, the one better, the other worse. That is the better which enjoys a democratic government, a constitution which honors equality, the rulers of which are law and justice; and such a constitution as this is a hymn to God. But that is the worse kind which adulterates this constitution, just as base and clipped money is adulterated in the coinage, being, in fact, ochlocracy, which admires inequality, in which injustice and lawlessness bear sway." (Philo Judaeus, On the Confusion of Tongues, Chapter XXIII).

This idea is not "fairly novel" (p. 66) even in the Jewish tradition, much less Christianity. Philo Judaeus was, not a Christian, but a Jew residing in Alexandria, Egypt, in the first century A.D. He does not share our author's political commitments. Was he a Marxist more than a millennium before Marx, a French Revolutionist in embryo long centuries before the French Revolution? A 'leftist' perhaps? A devoted fan of 'The View'? 'Woke,' maybe? In this case, nonsensical, made-up history gives rise to bad politics. If the people who follow this cult understood how whimsical their 'history' is,— and this is not the only case, they encourage home-schooling by pretending that schools did not exist prior to modern times, and then, of course, there is the Civil War. Douglas Wilson is a paleoConfederate, what Stephen Wolfe's view is, I couldn't say.

It may be that their experience is that hard fascism is a tough sell to women, and that could quite possibly be. Upon hearing about the gynocracy, some of his followers on Twitter, people like Rett Copple, immediately began calling for the repeal of the 19th Amendment, which secures to women the right to vote. Our author believes that male heads-of-households should vote:

"Since civil society is a composition of households and men are the head of households, the public signaling of political interest (whether through voting or other mechanisms) would be conducted by men, for they represent their households and everyone in it." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 73).)

It is quite astonishing that they think it will be so easy to deprive one half the human race of their civil rights, but so they do. In the New Asgard, women do not speak, they are spoken for. If, God forbid, this bunch ever comes to exercise power, we will see the biggest deprivation of civil liberties since the end of Reconstruction:

One shudders to think what will happen if this cohort ever breaks out of its current lunatic fringe status. It often sounds like they think they already have; to listen to them, you would think World Domination is within reach. They use majoritarian rhetoric, as if they speak for the people; though I suspect even those politicians they admire may find their desire to deprive women of their voice to be a bridge too far. Certainly any politician who desires to win election cannot begin by telling one half the electorate that they do not deserve to vote for him. What if they find it sufficient reply to vote for his opponent?

The Lares

The ancient Romans were a very pious people, who carried out many religious observances during the course of a year, a week, or indeed even the day. They worshipped, of course, the twelve Olympian deities who were honored by the city in the big temples. They also worshipped their ancestors. They made death masks and portrait busts of deceased family members and offered sacrifice and other religious observances in connection with this imagery. The feared dead, the malignant dead, they placated with gifts:

"When the vision fled and carried slumber with it, the pair reported to the king his brother’s words. Romulus complied, and gave the name Remuria to the day on which due worship is paid to buried ancestors. In the course of ages the rough letter, which stood at the beginning of the name, was changed into the smooth; and soon the souls of the silent multitude were also called Lemures: that is the meaning of the word, that is the force of the expression. But the ancients shut the temples on these days, as even now you see them closed at the season sacred to the dead. " (Ovid, Fasti).

The more kindly-disposed, benevolent, deceased family members could also receive divine honors as Lares, or tutelary spirits protecting the household. Knowing that the ancient Romans practice ancestor worship makes one wonder when reading, quoted from Cicero:

That's deeply moving, no doubt. Cicero sure could write, unlike some folks! And he is excellent on the topic of patriotism, explaining that the lack of patriotism is simply ingratitude. Except. . .Christians are not exactly supposed to practice ancestor worship. Not really. In fact, one of the reasons the ancient Romans despised the Christians is because we didn't honor our ancestors and their ancestors. We explained, to those who asked, that they were residing in hell and thus were not worth the trouble:

"The zeal and rapid progress of the Christians awakened the Polytheists from their supine indifference in the cause of those deities, whom custom and education had taught them to revere. . .The Pagans were incensed at the rashness of a recent and obscure sect, which presumed to accuse their countrymen of error, and to devote their ancestors to eternal misery." (Edward Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume 2, Chapter 16, Part 5, p. 42).

Christians don't worship their ancestors. Or, at least, then they didn't. Now they do? It seems to go along with this whole blood and soil thing, which perhaps is after all more pagan than Christian. This author says he is a Christian, but his Christianity is not the faith of the convert, not the blinding light which knocked Paul off his horse, not the life-changing faith that sings, "I was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see." His Christians are born that way: "Christianity as expressed culturally is always particular and transmitted through natural generations." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 242).) Not the faith of the altar call, rather, it is the Christianity that says 'we are better than you are, going back many generations, as it happens.'

Of what value is a religion which succeeds in binding its adherents together into one common body in this life, but upon death will show itself to be vain, unable to save from hell-fire? Mohammed ibn Abdallah, presenting to the world his own innovations in the field, encountered resistance from people who told him, sorry, your new teaching has not been sacralized by intergenerational repetition: "And when it was said to them ‘Accede to that which God hath sent down, and to the Apostle:’ they said, ‘Sufficient for us is the faith in which we found our fathers.’ What! though their fathers knew nothing, and had no guidance?" (Koran, Sura 5, verse 104). He thought the matter through and realized the common bond the adherents forged in this life will fly apart once its vanity becomes apparent. He imagines those newly arrived in Hell castigating the 'prophets' and 'teachers' who led them there:

"When those who have had followers shall declare themselves clear from their followers after that they have seen the chastisement, and when the ties between them shall be cut asunder; The followers shall say, ‘Could we but return to life we would keep ourselves clear from them, as they have declared themselves clear of us.’ So will God show them their works! Sighing is upon them! but, forth from the fire they come not." (Mohammed ibn Abdallah, Koran, Sura 2, verse 166).

A false religionist telling on himself! Mohammed imagines an inter-generational conversation, a lament shot through with recrimination. That's indeed just how it will be.

"He shall say, ‘Enter ye into the Fire with the generations of Djinn and men who have preceded you. So oft as a fresh generation entereth, it shall curse its sister, until when they have all reached it, the last comers shall say to the former, “O our Lord! these are they who led us astray: assign them therefore a double torment of the fire:”’ He will say, ‘Ye shall all have double.’ But of this are ye ignorant. And the former of them shall say to the latter, ‘What advantage have ye over us? Taste ye therefore the torment for that which ye have done.’ (Koran, Sura 7, verse 38).

Of what value is it to be practicing the religion of one's forbears on the same soil as they practiced it? If it opens the pathway to heaven, of great value, but if it opens up the trap door leading to hell, of less than no value, of infinitely negative value, because what is lost outweighs to such a massive extent what was gained or thought to have been gained. The early Christians who tossed aside the traditions of their ancestors were not wrong, and had the better part of the bargain in the end. What are the neofascists of the present day saying to Hindus in India, for example? If such hearers follow the logic of what is being presented, they are telling them, 'Go to hell.' Their own forbears were sufficiently prudent, and clear-eyed in assessing the value of blood and soil, to escape from the curse of their ancestors. But those clear-eyed forbears are expected, it would seem, to pull up that ladder after themselves. Or is this political philosophy only ever intended for Christians, not pagans? When it is based on 'nature,' not revelation?

Intermarriage

This tweet by Stephen Wolfe attracted a lot of attention when it appeared on Twitter. What "groups" are not supposed to intermarry in the New Asgard?:

He never really explained it, nor 'clarified' it to anyone's satisfaction. Is there ever a case when persons of different races belong to the same ethnicity? Maybe if you have to ask, then you wouldn't know. What marriages, specifically, are interdicted by this (relative) prohibition? Apparently it is to be understood as applicable culturally or linguistically. Ruth and Boaz? John Rolfe and Pocahontas? Henry Kissinger and Nancy Maginnes? Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner? Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz? We'll never know. The reader who comes to this book with an open mind might be expecting to see case studies, examples where multiculturalism worked, and where it didn't work. But this is completely lacking. Our author does not walk us through the break-up of the former Yugoslavia, the troubles in Northern Ireland, the failed secession of Biafra, or indeed any of the myriad objective facts and circumstances that might seem relevant to an examination of ethnicity and the state. He's not interested in any of that.

Why did the Hutus and Tutsis come to grief? How, on the other hand, did the United States, a nation of many ethnicities and confessions, succeed so brilliantly in World War II? A shared set of political commitments,— to democracy, to free speech— served to bind us together. This he despises as "creedalism:" "The creedal nation is a nation united around a set of propositions that creedalists consider universally true or at least practically advantageous. . .Creedal statements usually include egalitarian themes and rights-talk. . ." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 119).) Probably his lack of enthusiasm for "creedalism" stems from the fact that, measured by that measuring stick, he is not one of us, but rather a traitor and seditionist.

The reader's innocent expectation that this book will incorporate case studies, cases where multi-ethnic nations worked and where they didn't work, will be entirely defeated. Examples so the reader can know what he's talking about when he discourages "intermarriage"? Not given. Instead he recommends introspection. You should reflect on who you are and why you feel your group is different from other groups. This book is an exercise in consciousness-raising: "I attempt to bring to consciousness the fundamental relations of people and place—relations so familiar to us that we are largely unaware of them." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 118).) His field is not social research, but navel-gazing: "My goal is to provide reflections on lived experience such that one’s own people-group is brought to conscious articulation (i.e., we become consciously aware of it)." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 134).) Using this introspective procedure, a white racist can be expected to discover he likes white people better than Black people. Is that a bug or a feature? He encourages his readers to explore their ethnicity this way: "Think of the people with whom you feel at ease conducting your daily life. . ." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 136).)

Douglas Wilson wrote a book, 'Black and Tan,' about the Civil War, in which he made what he thought was the brilliant move of rezoning Robert Lewis Dabney's racist case for slavery onto a cultural one. It appears this author wants to do the same thing, not with slavery, but with garden-variety bigotry. If one celebrates one's own social group for its cultural elevation, and scorns the other for its cultural slovenliness, that is to arrive at the same destination the racists did, but by a slightly different route. That destination is, 'my group is good, your group is bad.' This approach is frowned upon by scripture, which says, "To have respect of persons is not good" (Proverbs 28:21), but it's a perennial crowd-pleaser.

Johann Friedrich Blumenbach divided all humanity into five groups, Caucasian, Ethiopian, American, Mongolian, and Malay. These in practice collapse down to three. This author vehemently denies he is a racist, and it could very well be that he is not interested in Blumenbach's big three. His nations are smaller. Are they perhaps no larger than a shared language extends?:

"Language, for example, is a particularity (for there is no universal language), and sharing language is necessary for most meaningful civic activities. Since those who share a culture are similar people, and since cultural similarity is necessary for the common good, I argue that the natural inclination to dwell among similar people is good and necessary." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 24).)

If so that's bad news for Nigeria and India, who will have to split into multiple countries, as these countries harbor many languages. This is why ethnonationalism has been a mixed blessing for humanity since it was first preached, since splitting up the old empires into ethnically homogeneous states cannot be achieved without bloodshed and forcible deportation, i.e., ethnic cleansing. Our author seems to expect he will be able to do it amicably: ". . .perhaps in some cases amicable ethnic separation along political lines is mutually desired." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 149).) Shared language, according to him, is essential though not sufficient to making a nation (sorry, Hispanics):

"Ethnicity, as something experienced, is familiarity with others based in common language, manners, customs, stories, taboos, rituals, calendars, social expectations, duties, loves, and religion." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 136).)

On its face, a multiethnic nation like America cannot exist under this definition. Is he one of these advocates for a National Divorce? Preference for one's own existed long before Blumenbach, and can long survive the demise of Blumenbach's big-three system. Geneticists point out there is more genetic variety within Africa than between his three groups; the map must be redrawn, if it were even politically possible to draw it at all. The Greeks didn't need Blumenbach to look down on the barbarians. As mentioned, Doug Wilson, in his Black & Tan, saw the way clear to rehabilitating Robert Lewis Dabney, the great defender of the Confederacy, by substituting culture for Dabney's category of race.

Ruth Benedict did leave the door open to this recasting of racism when she defined the phenomenon. She felt it was no longer tenable to define cultural differences between groups as the outworking of underlying genetically-determined physical differences, as the racists used to do. She defined the phenomenon as such: “the dogma that one ethnic group is condemned by nature to congenital inferiority and another group is defined to congenital superiority.” As Douglas Wilson and his followers noticed, in no way did she deny that some groups were inferior and others superior. This gave them hope.

He quotes, with apparent approval, Cicero: “As Cicero states, 'There is a nearer relation of race [gens], nation, and language, which brings men into very close community of feeling.'” (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 150).) This is the older use of the term, referring to a community of common descent of indeterminate size but larger than tribe or clan, which predates the 'three races' theory of Blumenbach and others. Like Douglas Wilson his sponsor, this author bristles when people call him a racist, as they inevitably do. Recall his sole method of identifying nations or ethnicities is introspection, which when applied by racists will lead invariably to a racist conclusion. One must wonder why he rejects the label, aside from its current unpopularity.

The 19th century 'scientific' racists had not called themselves 'racists,' they called themselves 'anthropologists,' etc. Under this form of racism, genetics was a cause invoked to explain differences between groups. The classical racists believed race was a concept of vast explanatory power. They felt it explained much of human history. They would trace out, say, Italian history as the outworking of this nation's innate and genetically determined warmth and impulsiveness. Then turning to the Swedes, they find innate stoicism and imperturbability at play. It all seems silly today. Race was held to be the independent variable, the cause why historical divergences occur in the first place.

Not only do the racists not call themselves racist any more, but nobody really believes in that version of racism. Or so one would like to believe. One would like to credit this author's indignation when he is accused of racism, as he often is. But then why does he go out of his way to quote classic nineteenth century racists like Ernest Renan? This worthy made the discovery that "Jesus was no longer a Jew." (Ernest Renan, The Life of Jesus, Chapter XIII). Why not let the Aryan Jesus die a natural death? Why quote this author at all? Renan was one of those who discovered that modern Jews are not descendants of Abraham, but rather of the Khazars, a central Asian people group who adopted Judaism. This theory has lately been revived by the Black Hebrew Israelites. Why quote a racist and an anti-semite like Renan? But he does:

"A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. . . The cult of ancestors is the most legitimate of all; our ancestors have made us who we are.. .One loves the house that one has built and passes down." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 140).)

Is his indignation at being taken for a racist no more than performative? Why quote Renan to explain what a nation is? From the Christian standpoint, Marcionism is a heresy. Far from Christian, Renan is no more than a Unitarian if that, because he does not believe that Jesus is God incarnate. What is Mr. Wolfe communicating by quoting him as the fountainhead of wisdom on the topic of race? Or atheist David Hume: "David Hume, with his usual eloquence, argues in effect for the principle of similarity:. . .'Accordingly we find, that where, beside the general resemblance of our natures, there is any peculiar similarity in our manners, or character, or country, or language, it facilitates the sympathy.'" (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (pp. 141-142). The very same David Hume who said, "I am apt to suspect  the Negroes to be naturally inferior to the whites. There scarcely ever was a civilized nation of that complexion, nor even individual eminent in action or speculation. . ." (David Hume, 'Of National Characters,' 1777). If our author is not a racist, why does he quote those who are?

If racism has indeed gone out of vogue, partiality for one's own group has not gone anywhere; that viewpoint actually long predates racism. This means there is an underserved market. Ruth Benedict allows plenty of room for casting shade on other cultures; some are quite frankly understood to be better than others. One's own is best, of course. The 'woke' world has long left Ruth Benedict in the dust, but the world-makers of Moscow, Idaho expect their new and improved version of ethnic condescension to be flameproof and unassailable. It rejects racism in the sense of genetic determinism. But since it retains the selling point and value proposition of the old racism: 'we are better than you,' it should still sell. And though this new and improved version does not speak of Caucasian or Mongol, it would come as no great surprise to discover the very same people end up on the bottom as were there all along. Those grapes are sour.

These folks oscillate between an extremely arrogant form of expression which seems to assume that world domination is easy and just within reach, to dejected whining about how small their movement is and why don't people leave them alone. I don't think they are on the cusp of coming to power — and realize, any election they won would be the last election— but it's not as if they have no influence either. They have helped to foster mistaken ideas about what sorts of political ideas could be meaningfully described as Christian. The reader who has been following politics in these recent, unfortunate years has heard it all before: there is supposed to be a global elite controlling the world, from whom these people are going to heroically free us: "A hostile and secularist ruling class roams free, and few Christians are willing to take the struggle to a higher level." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 326).) From V.I. Lenin's lips, to their ears; that used to be called Marxism-Leninism. Should, God forbid, they ever gain power, who will then free us from them, they don't explain:

It would be a bad enough thing to have the 'elite' controlling the things of this world, as they keep telling us. This is not really even true; when the Hunt brothers tried to corner the silver market, they got their heads handed back to them. Free markets are not so readily subject to manipulation by a small group acting in concert as these people think. But suppose the 'elite' did control the economy. Would not it make the situation unimaginably worse to assign the same 'elite' as gatekeepers to the world beyond? It's actually a good thing they aren't. If Stephen Wolfe's plan had been in place and the U.S. Presidents assigned the people their religion, we'd all be Episcopalians and Unitarians. Thankfully our founders understood that the government must not control religion, and we can sit on the grass and watch as the Episcopal Church plummets in free fall. We need not plummet with it.

Respect of persons

The Bible takes a dim view of 'respect of persons:'

What is 'respect of persons'? It may include, though it is not limited to, taking account of a person's ethnicity:

"Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons [προσωποληπτης]: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." (Acts 10:34-35). 

A judge who is mesmerized by appearances, staring into the faces of the parties, is not doing justice. More than a few American courthouses have a statue out front of Lady Justice wearing a blind-fold. At first sight this perplexes: shouldn't Justice be the last party you'd want to see blind-folded? Isn't clear sight a prerequisite to doing justice? But Lady Justice ought to be blind to the things she ought to be blind to, which include ethnicity, along with status, and pursue a line of , 'Just the facts, ma'am.' Showing partiality to your own ethnic group is not admirable.

Our author believes it is good that we love the familiar and prefer it to the alien: "The instinct to love the familiar more than the foreign is good and remains operative in all spiritual states of man." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 118).) Preference for our own group — "family, kin, countrymen,"— over strangers might well be universal; it is certainly very common and familiar from all times and places, but must be watched with vigilance to avoid falling into respect of persons, which the Bible condemns.

There is, in this author, a willingness to flat-out recommend what the Bible specifically and pointedly corrects. Call no man father? But no: “This is one reason why civil magistrates are often called 'fathers' by their people.” (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 276).) The Romans called their distinguished politicians 'father' of their country, didn't they? Indeed they did. So how can it be wrong? Well. . . Neither is this reported as a neutral sociological fact about the Romans; our author is looking for his prince to come, and he will call him father when he does: "This title [prince] denotes both an executive power (viz., one who administers the laws) and personal eminence in relation to the people. The prince is the first of his people—one whom the people can look upon as father or protectorate of the country." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 279).). The thing is, like, somebody said, "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." (Matthew 23:9). It's in the Bible. But this author told you straight up that that's not where he gets his information, and indeed it is not. Believe them when they tell you who they are, especially when they say the quiet part out loud.

Temptation in the Desert

It is not as though Jesus had never heard of Christian Nationalism. Satan suggested the project to Him:

"And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.  And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." (Luke 4:4-8)

His answer was no. Their answer is yes.

Likewise, Jesus said that His kingdom is not of this world: "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." (John 18:36). In this present stage of the kingdom, prior to the second coming, it is not subject to observation: "And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17:20-21). In other words, 'Moscow, ID' is not the right answer, certainly not the Biblical answer. You can believe it or not, it's a free country, no one ever said you had to believe the Bible. But by Biblical standards, their kingdom is fake; it is not the real thing, nor even very much like the real thing.

Heaven

Our author wishes for it to be understood that it is natural for people to prefer the company of their own kind: “The instinct to live within one’s 'tribe' or one’s own people is neither a product of the fall nor extinguished by grace; rather, it is natural and good.” (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 23).) But you don't find that viewpoint expressed just everywhere:

There is no suggestion that these people have different places of residence or are unwilling to engage in the common project of praising God in company with others. In other words they seem to be lacking the "instinct" to "live within one's 'tribe,'" which perhaps falls away, like other earthly imperfections, upon arrival.

Our author's category of 'Christian nationalism' is a sub-species of the genus 'nationalism:' "Everything I affirm of the nation and nationalism I can also affirm of Christian nationalism, as I stated earlier." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 24).) The possibility should be entertained that the nations as they now are observed to be, with their constant warfare and self-preference, are fallen in some respects and do not represent God's perfect will for mankind.

This project is very short on observation in any case. The reader who comes to this book expecting that the author will present case studies of multicultural, multi-ethnic states which failed — and there are many such cases, the Hutu and the Tutsis, the Turks and the Armenians, — will discover that this author has no interest in diagnosing what went wrong with the Rohingya. Certainly it's true that diversity does not always bring with it strength, although sometimes it does. One suspects there is only one case this author is really interested in, and a nudge is enough to remind people of it: "Instead of relying on a bird’s-eye view of the concept, I mainly appeal to the reader’s own experience with people and place to reveal to them their own belonging to a people and place." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 24).)

This author rather oddly suggests people love their children because said children are most similar to themselves: "We have complacent love for our own children because they are most similar to us and most intimately come from us. . .In this way, the background impulse to love some over others is a sort of complacent self-love, for the ground for the preference is similarity." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 25).) Is this really why we love our children, we are only loving ourselves, as did Narcissus? Didn't Mary love Jesus? Yet in the end He is not all that similar to her. Perhaps our author loves those he does love, whoever they are, only because he sees a reflection of himself in their eyes; they call that narcissism.

Exiles

Where does this blood and soil mystique come from? Not from the Bible. The Bible says that we are exiles in this world:

Exile, essentially, dwelling in a foreign land. Nobody said you had to believe the Bible; it's a free country. At least for now, it still is. The Bible does not say that we are our relations, nor the place where the dwelt; it says we are strangers and pilgrims: "Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul. . ." (1 Peter 2:11).

Tower of Babel

Readers have noticed that our author's work is very long on the contributions of minor Calvinists of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and very short on Bible. It's not that the Bible doesn't address his concerns. It's just that what the Bible says doesn't 'work' for him. Why are there different languages? Because God made man for this? Well, not exactly; God did it to be sure, but it wasn't exactly a pat on the head:

“And the LORD said, 'Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them.  Come, let Us go down and there †confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.” (Genesis 11:6-7).

Our author sagely notes, "A common language, for example, is necessary for the highest form of encouragement in one’s spiritual life. Imagine Christian and Faithful in Pilgrim’s Progress being unable to communicate; how far would they get?" (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (pp. 27-28).) God has thought about this too.

This multiplicity of tongues will not characterize the restored creation, rather, “In that day it shall be— 'The LORD is one,' And His name one.” (Zechariah 14:9); “For then I will restore to the peoples a pure language, that they all may call on the name of the LORD, to serve Him with one accord.” (Zephaniah 3:9). A foretaste of this occurred on the Day of Pentecost, when people who spoke different languages could understand each other: “Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, 'Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born?'” (Acts 2:7-8). Nor is there any suggestion that God wanted these linguistic groups to keep to themselves and not engage in mutual aid, rather the contrary:

Scatter the Proud

The underlying problem with the author is the same as Doug Wilson. He gets the Bible upside-down and backwards:

So much for any thought that all men are created equal. Rather, "Hierarchy is, therefore, not some postlapsarian necessity. But neither is it morally neutral. It is good in itself, even of higher worth that egalitarian arrangements." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 68).) Who would have suspected it, our author is an aristocrat: "We can also conclude that a natural aristocracy would arise in each community to rule, establishing a rule by the best." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 72).) As they tell it in Moscow, Idaho, God honors the high and mighty and thinks it only right and proper that they should assume their rightful place, at the top of the heap. In God's word it's just exactly the other way around:

Lest the reader think I exaggerate in classifying this school of political thought with the divine right of kings, please realize this author goes on and on in this vein:

"Having the highest office on earth, the good prince resembles God to the people. Indeed, he is the closest image of God on earth. This divine presence in the prince speaks to his role beyond civil administration. Through him, as the mediator of divine rule, the prince brings God near to the people. The prince is a sort of national god. . ." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 287).)

This kind of talk is not particularly common in American political discourse, because it just isn't. Remember Louis XIV and "l'etat c'est moi"? Our author remembers: "He embodies the people as one who, by divine power, executes their will for themselves." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 288).) This language is frankly idolatrous and is not compatible with monotheistic religion:

The thought process here is similar to what went into building the tower of Babel: the gods are on high, the top story is closer to their realm than the bottom story, the government is on high, almost touching the gods, or at any rate only a stone's throw away from them. The people occupy the bottom: God could never possibly speak to them or through them, they are a rabble, they are damned. This entire thought process is not Biblical. The government cannot be assumed to be closer to God than are the people and so does not naturally fall into the role the Muscovites assign to their despot, as high priest or mediator explaining God's ways to man.

What is It?

At this the reader might object and say, you set out to discuss Christian Nationalism, and then you proceeded to discuss, not what the generality of people who use the term mean by it, but one noisome neofascist project which assures us that, to have a Christian Nation, we must rescind the First, Fourteenth, and Nineteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, along with the No Religious Tests clause. People can willingly and sincerely disassociate themselves from White Identity politics and Neoconfederacy and still call themselves Christian Nationalists.  They do not need to be looking for "great men" or a "prince" to lead the country: "The prince is the first of his people—one whom the people can look upon as father or protectorate of the country. (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 279).) "Protectorate"? Perhaps he means "protector:" for an author with the pretensions this author has, he does not express himself well. Someone might be willing to adhere to the U.S. Constitution, unlike Stephen Wolfe, yet still call himself or herself a "Christian Nationalist." Yes, but what do people mean when they say that?

If what they mean is that, the United States is, and has been from its founding, a democracy a majority of whose voters are confessing Christians, I couldn't agree more. If that's the channel through which the divine input travels, the people themselves, then who could object? If this is de facto a Christian nation, as it is and has been, but not a de jure Christian nation, which it can never be so long as the Constitution stands, then there's no difficulty. The Holy Spirit can speak through the people in whom He resides. Alcuin warned against the saying, Vox populi, vox dei: the voice of the people is the voice of God, but there's nothing wrong with the concept. The voters, if they are Christians, are not gods but are temples of the living God. The intent of the First Amendment is not to disenfranchise religious people, but rather to allow all to participate.

Even the Catholics believe something like this. When pondering whether to proclaim as dogma that the Virgin Mary was assumed bodily into heaven, a circumstance of which the Bible knows nothing, the pope took a poll. He asked the clergy and laity if they already believed that. Finding the answer was 'yes,' he proclaimed it as dogma. Even our author realizes the Christianity in any Christian nation must come through the people, it cannot come down from Caesar: "Since the people of God are prior to civil government. . ." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 187).)

There is no special reason to think that God speaks through hierarchies, especially not self-appointed hierarchies. To take His voice, poll His people. Of course, should the people turn and serve Satan, the voice of the people will become the voice of Satan. And if it is? Then the remedy for a lost world must come in the form of religious revival, if it is to come at all; the government cannot save the lost. How to ask for the thunder? let God speak His mind: let His people vote. Done, achieved, let's retain and cherish our Constitution and the freedom it safeguards, which this author wishes to steal away from us. If the voice of God wells up from below, from the people, not from any hierarchy, we are good as far as the Constitution. There is sound empirical reason, besides, to suspect God does not speak through hierarchies, because so history testifies.

This author gets accused a lot of being a racist. Is that fair? He explains that unlike newcomers like the Puritans, sojourners in a strange land, or the patriarchs of Israel, you and I are bound by intergenerational ties to the land:

"Blood relations matter for your ethnicity, because your kin have belonged to this people on this land—to this nation in this place—and so they bind you to that people and place, creating a common volksgeist." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 139).)

Is there a reason to say it in German? Not me, by the way; one grandmother was born in Norway, the other in Poland. They were new-comers to New Jersey where I grew up. It comes as a surprise to me to discover that either was lacking anything essential to human nature. Is he a racist? Recall, the KKK used to dislike immigrants almost as much as they disliked African-Americans. Perhaps not exactly, but it may come to much the same thing in practice, although he helpfully explains he has friends who are non-white: "Given my friendships and associations with people of different ancestry. . ." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 172).) Nineteenth century 'scientific' racism evolved a very distinctive set of ideas, some of which are perhaps not important for this author. But in the end, the ties that bind his 'Christian Nation' include blood, as he explains: "You are your relations." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 156).) This is not so from God's viewpoint, or is Abraham Terah, an idolater?

Our author's classification system differs from nineteenth century racism, perhaps, although it's hard to say given that he provides no catalog of the nations, no examples, no case studies. Physical descent is very much a factor in it however:

"A Christian people share particular norms, customs, blood, etc., which are not easily forced upon them." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 328).)

He tells us his ancestry is Western European: ". . .rooted ancestrally in Western Europe. . ." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (pp. 118-119).) Does that mean those Americans whose ancestry is not rooted in Western Europe cannot be in the same nation with him? Like Tucker Carlson he is concerned about 'replacement:' "Thus, Western man, whose birthrates have plummeted, creates well-ordered spaces and civil institutions not for himself and his natural progeny but for his replacements." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 169).) "Replacement" will, he warns, end with "dispossession" and "national suicide." (p. 170 and 172). The reader regretfully must find this publishing project in the end reminiscent of the shooter's manifestos that occasionally come to light after some particularly horrific crime.

Realizing that, according to him, there cannot be any nation which harbors two or more ethnicities: ". . .no nation (properly speaking) is composed of two or more ethnicities." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (pp. 135-136)), one must wonder where this leaves everybody outside his charmed circle. If a multi-ethnic state is undesirable, or is even an impossibility, how is this condition to be rectified, and does the solution involve mass graves? He doesn't tell us. It seems incontrovertible though that if his ideas were ever widely adopted, they would bathe the world in blood for generations.

As noted above, his concept of ethnicity builds upon a base of common descent. Ties of blood are necessary but not sufficient. Not only blood, there's soil too, a place we call home. Property ownership imbues the lives of his people with meaning. You will not hear them singing, "This world is not my home, I'm just a-passing through." There's more though; the people in your in-group are imagined to be soul-mates. The 'innies' speak with one voice; they resonate in tune with one another. He defines it more particularly in terms of whether you feel comfortable dealing with people:

"Reflecting on familiarity and foreignness helps us to see our true ethnicity and who belongs to it. Think of the people with whom you feel at ease conducting your daily life. . ." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 136).)

Who is it that he encounters in daily life that he does not feel comfortable in dealing with? The reader suspects we already know the answer. The group he has chosen to associate with are big fans of Robert Lewis Dabney. His verdict on our country and our way of life is a negative one:

"People of different ethnic groups can exercise respect for difference, conduct some routine business with each other, join in inter-ethnic alliances for mutual good, and exercise common humanity (e.g., the good Samaritan), but they cannot have a life together that goes beyond mutual alliance." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 148).)

To be sure our verdict on him cannot be much higher. Routine business it is. Visit their coffee-shops, people of Moscow, Idaho, but do not go to their church! It will vacuum out your soul. It's beyond me how these people can make sense of the contradictions they are expected to embrace, theonomy or not-theonomy: “But they [Moses' civil law] are dead; they are 'no longer living in such a way as to obligate,' says Junius.” (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 267).) Like the man said, “Calvin writes, '[E]ach nation has been left at liberty to enact the laws which it judges as beneficial.'” (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 267).) Is the law of Moses "a universal body of law" (p. 267), or not? This is what generates cults, when a weak-minded individual, like say Charles Taze Russell, is set up as an oracle, as he wavers this way and that, and the people must follow, first this way, then that. But not everyone is able to turn their minds off on cult command. Fortunately the Moscow group, by itself, is fairly small and is not likely to be able to bring any of their grand schemes to fruition.

This project actually seems more reminiscent of Francisco Franco's version of fascism than the more familiar German and Italian projects. The longing for a man on a horse is certainly there with these people: "More than that, however, the magistrate is also the head of the people—the one to whom they look to see greatness, a love of country, and the best of men. He is their spirit. . . the magistrate is the heart and spirit of the people. He is, or ought to be, the quintessential great man, and we turn to him next." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 276).)

Americans do not talk like this about their political leaders. But Franco had the Catholic Church; these folks have nothing comparable, other than the mistaken impression they foster that they speak for 'Evangelicals,' much less 'Christians.' As you'll notice if you ever interact with them, they defend their views with relentless dishonesty, as if everyone who thinks the right side won the Civil War can only be a Marxist. When they receive pushback against their fascist projects, they take on the pose of martyrs for the Christian faith. Mark and avoid anyone who quotes these sources as Christian teaching.

They are fully prepared to take up arms against their neighbors to achieve their aims:

"Are Christians permitted to conduct revolution against a tyrant whose actions are significantly detrimental to true religion? I affirm this. . .no set of circumstances would permit a civil ruler justly to destroy true religion, whether by secularization or by replacing it with heresy, infidelity, or paganism. Such actions, in themselves, make the civil ruler a tyrant, for he has attacked the principal object of human life, namely, the acknowledgment and worship of God, which is the also the ultimate end of civil society. . .The civil ruler who attacks true religion is not acting as a minister of God. He is an enemy of his people’s good, an enemy of the human race, and an enemy of God." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 338-339).)

Since they believe American political life in general is detrimental to true religion, the conditions for their putsch exist right now. When will the tyranny they intend to overthrow come into view? It's here now: "When Christians are under a universalizing and totalizing non-Christian regime that wields implicit powers against true religion, how is this not tyranny? . . .This certainly is tyranny. .." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 345).)

Fortunately, however, they are not a very effectual group of people and are not likely to be able to achieve much more than random stochastic violence. Which does not stop them from continually banging the drum: "Christian Americans should see themselves as under a sort of occupation. Forces largely from outside your communities suppress that natural drive, confirmed by grace, for public religion. The ruling class is hostile to your Christian town, to your Christian people, and to your Christian heritage. . .The top-down and foreign imposition of secularism is evident in Supreme Court decisions. . ." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 344).) What the Waco or Ruby Ridge for this movement will be I can't say, but I don't doubt there will be one.

As the reader has probably noticed, racism is defined in a variety of ways nowadays. Some people define public policy as 'racist' if it is believed to result in harmful consequences for a segment of the population. By this definition, Ronald Reagan was a racist, as you can verify by reading Jemar Tisby, even though Mr. Reagan and his constituency sincerely believed the policies they were pursuing would be broadly beneficial. But broadening the term to this extent effectually renders it meaningless; if a 'racist' is anyone who supports policies you think unwise, then 'racist' effectually means 'person with whom I disagree.' If casting too wide a net is Scylla, the hazard to be avoided on one side, then wishing the reality away is Carybdis, the hazard on the other; surely there is such a thing as racism, and white males peddling grievances might be productive soil in which to dig for it.

Among his litany of complaints against the 'occupying force' which now runs the country is this: "They teach critical race theory and white self-hatred in secondary education." (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 443). While not all the people protesting Critical Race Theory are racists, surely if you went looking for racists, this is one neighborhood where the hunt might turn up the actual quarry. Is Stephen Wolfe's project racism, or its modern variant, kinism? When the suggestion is made, he replies with cries of wounded integrity, as if how could anyone accuse him of such a thing, and points out that his concept of ethnicity goes beyond physical descent. It does, but it includes physical descent as an essential basis. Given that fact, under what conditions could people of different races count as the same ethnicity? His book is published by Canon Press, Douglas Wilson's family-owned vanity press, and he seems to be playing by Douglas Wilson's playbook in defending himself from the inevitable charges of racism you get when you go in their direction. If you follow these characters on Twitter, you encounter unashamed and unapologetic white supremacists in the comments to their Twitter threads. Who are these people? Innocent fans? No, they are federal agents, planted on purpose to make them look bad:

"You can also ascertain that CN is becoming a real thing because of all those FBI and DOJ bro-bots—you know, fake-account feds in MAGA hats doing things like the antisemitic jag. You may not know this, but this is a real sign of having arrived. . .the only real thing worth debating is which federal agency it was." (Douglas Wilson, Blog & Mablog, 'Live not by Lies, at least not Lots of Them,' September 4, 2023).

Really, the federal government has nothing better to do with your tax dollars than to hire people to pose as Doug Wilson fan boys and make racist remarks in the comment section? Let's ask, rather, what is it in these authors' views that the fan boys find exciting. And are these same ideas Biblical, or not? Does the Bible even address these issues? Are these political options that can be pursued by Christian people, or should this approach be off the table?

The kind of thing at issue is shown in a quotation from Charles Hodge that Stephen Wolfe presents:

“The Bible recognizes the validity and rightness of all the constitutional principles and impulses of our nature. It therefore approves of parental and filial affection, and, as is plain from this and other passages, of peculiar love for the people of own race and country.” (Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 87).).

A peculiar love for the people of our own race? Really? That's in the Bible?:

Where next for Christian nationalism? How about. . .idol-smashing?: