The Dangerous Case for Christian Nationalism.

A review of Stephen Wolfe's book, "The Case for Christian Nationalism"

Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism. Canon Press, Moscow, ID: 2022. ISBN: 978-1-957905-33-4. 478 pages. Price $24.99.

---

Few things are as alarming to our current political ecosystem as Christian Nationalism (I’ll abbreviate “Christian Nationalism” as “CN” throughout this review). I’ve been actively speaking out against CN for roughly half a decade now, and the main difference from then to now is that it is gaining influence. We’ve got sitting Representatives proudly calling themselves Christian Nationalists¹ and Trump allies are teasing the idea of infusing Christian Nationalism into a possible second Trump term². And then we had a real glimpse of the extremist ideology that can be justified and motivated by Christian Nationalism during the January 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection.³ Christian Nationalism is a real threat to the American idea, but more so, it’s a real threat to the Christian faith. And yet, many people sit back and justify CN, they affirm the ideas that Stephen Wolfe promotes. I believe that many more people disagree with CN and will equally call it out when needed, and that is important. But, with the rise of CN being undeniable, we need to actively speak against it. 

First, this review is going to be done from my perspective. I am not a political theorist and I have no academic training as a political theorist. My academics have been within religion, philosophy, and theology, from my undergraduate all the way to my Masters. So, my background and expertise will be coming from someone who’s read Wolfe’s book less with a political lens and more with a theological lens. And I think this is a benefit, because while CN is largely a political theory/ideology, it is, at its core, using Christianity as its modifier. 

Introduction.

Wolfe opens his book with an introduction that aims to give a general summary of each chapter and to offer his definition of Christian Nationalism. 

“Christian nationalism is a totality of national action, consisting of civil laws and social customs, conducted by a Christian nation as a Christian nation, in order to procure for itself earthly and heavenly good in Christ.” (p. 9)

In Wolfe’s method, he clearly states that he is “neither a theologian nor biblical scholar” (p. 16) and that this book is a “Christian political theory. It is not, overall, a work of political theology.” (p. 16). While I agree that Wolfe tries to lay out a political theory, he spends a large portion of this book attempting to justify his ends by using theology as a means. And, as I’ve said, if you’re going to use Christianity as a modifier to anything, you are inherently going to need theology to do so. The explicit reason for Wolfe writing this book is in the introduction, “The explicit absence of God in public life is now normal, and this new normal hardly needs official enforcement. With weakness of will and self-abnegation, Western Christians gaze at the ravishment of their Western heritage, either blaming themselves or, even worse, reveling in their humiliation. Christians today live in and fully embrace the conditions of deicide. We have not simply tied our own hands; we’ve handed over, without much fuss, the divine powers ordained for our good. The people of God have become accustomed to a life without them, even learning to love abuse from God-granted authorities that he ordained for their good.” (p. 3) Wolfe is motivated by a perceived existential threat of public Christianity. Wolfe seems to believe that we have found ourselves within the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche (“God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.”)⁴ by insisting Christians have partaken in deicide. I don’t want to spend too much time dissecting this statement from Wolfe, but it is troubling. To talk as if we are living under current persecution is false. To talk as if we have somehow given up divine power is false (given that divine power is instituted in God, and God cannot be overwhelmed).

I can’t help but assume that when Wolfe says “Western” he is suggesting white Americans, particularly white American men. I say this not to be presumptuous, but rather to be frank given the nature of Wolfe’s other points he makes throughout his book. In his view, nationalism, specifically Christian nationalism, is the natural end of what the gospel completes. “Nevertheless, the Gospel does not supersede, abrogate, eliminate, or fundamentally alter generic nationalism; it assumes and completes it.” (p. 11). This is the beginning of how Wolfe conflates nationalism into a supernatural entity. Claiming that the Gospel completes nationalism is theologically irrational since theology insists that this world is inherently damaged from the outcomes of sin. The Gospel does not speak on nationalism in any sense. The Gospel, clearly stated, assumes and completes the human soul back into perfect union with God. This will become a common theme that Wolfe makes throughout, and I want to correct it now rather than wait. The Gospel—the message that Jesus died on the cross as a sacrifice for sinners, that he was dead for three days, and that he rose from the dead to be with God the Father to pardon those who repent and believe in him so that they can be forgiven and redeemed—that message is the Gospel. 

Chapter I: Nations Before the Fall: What is Man? Part 1: Creation.

In a bit of irony, Wolfe opens with a quote from the infamous white nationalist, Samuel Francis. Wolfe spends a decent portion of this first chapter trying to explain anthropology, human rationalism, and moral duty. His definition of human anthropology is his shortest, given he only insists on saying that man is a rational animal. “The human animal is a rational animal—the only earthbound creature with a reasonable soul and capable of acting in accordance with a moral law.” (p. 40). Wolfe is making a very generic claim here, but he is incorrect in saying humans are the only animals able to react and act according to a moral law. First, there are many other animals capable of acting in accordance with a set of moral behaviors.⁵ Here, I think Wolfe is mistaking the concepts of ethics with morality. It would be better to insist that humans act according to an ethical law rather than a moral law since anything capable of expressing moral emotions is capable of acting in accordance with a moral law. But this is only a larger problem of Wolfe’s argument because he will continue to build his argument off the false premise that moral law is exclusive to humanity. With this, Wolfe inadvertently expresses himself as a relativist. Wolfe then moves from anthropology to prelapsarian theory. “How does fallen social life differ from unfilled social life, and what is the role of grace, the Gospel, and redemption? Surprisingly, no Christian writer (of which I’m aware) has sought to provide a systemic treatment of human sociality that shows continuity and discontinuity between these states.” (p. 41). 

This begins one of Wolfe’s most incoherent arguments. “How would Adam’s progeny have arranged themselves had Adam not sinned? Would nations have existed in a pre-fall world?” (p. 55). “The egalitarian spirit of our age leads us to imagine that the state of integrity would be one of perfect equality. But this is fairly novel in the Christian tradition.” (p. 66). Wolfe begins the quest to his prelapsarian theory by suggesting that equality, “perfect equality” is a novel idea for modern Christianity. Now, historically, he is wrong. Christian tradition has always been counter to inequality. This is most clear in Galatians 3:26-28, “for through faith you are all sons of God in Christ Jesus. For those of you who were baptized into Christ have been clothed with Christ. There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female; since you are all one in Christ Jesus.” the Bible explicitly says that there is no hierarchy in the faith, there are no separations, nor is there any sort of inequality. To be one under Christ is to be perfectly united, perfectly equal, and perfectly valued. So, for Wolfe to insist perfect equality is a novel idea in the Christian tradition is simply false. More-so, it is his way of attempting to villainize egalitarianism, since he is already clearly making an argument that inequality, hierarchy, and gender submission are inherently good and in accordance with Christian tradition. “Indeed, without hierarchy, dignity is meaningless.” (p. 54). “The man does not exist to empower the female, as if his role is merely to bring resources home. Rather, the man governs the household, orienting it to the divine mission he received from God, which he is responsible to see fulfilled. The wife is a necessary support for the man as he meets his obligations to the civil community and the broader mission of humanity” (the author uses italics to signify his own intentions. I did not add them.) (pp. 57-58). “Hierarchy is, therefore, not some postlapsarian necessity. But neither is it morally neutral. It is good in itself, even of higher worth than egalitarian arrangements.” (p. 68). One last note Wolfe makes on his quest to justify division and power holds before he gets into his prelapsarian theory of society is to make one more attempt to persuade readers that equality is not found in the “goodness of creation”. “The goodness of creation is not found in each part obtaining equality with every other part, nor is the completeness of humanity achieved by eliminating superior/inferior relations. The diversity of ranks in human society, each performing its function for the whole, is society’s perfection. Hence, by nature the perfection of human societies assumes an inegalitarian principle.” (pp. 69-70). Wolfe seems to have a bad understanding of egalitarianism. In theory, and practice, an egalitarian system produces a more abundant end than a system that is dictated by superior/inferior ranks. A system of superiority and inferiority will inherently produce less perfection because there are restrictions and limits bound in the fabrics. Think of an orchestra; there are dozens of different instruments with differing sounds, differing functions, and differing purposes. If you’re creating a symphony, you need each musician to play their instruments in an equal temperament to produce the most harmonizing sound. Even more clear is the history of the United States when society was strictly dictated by a superior/inferior relation. Chattel slavery was a direct product of this system, and that system of owning other humans is as disconnected from Christianity and societal perfection as possible. You cannot have dignity, or a perfect society, while also subjecting people to a system that keeps them inferior to other people. 

Now, towards the latter part of chapter one, Wolfe begins the journey to theorize a prelapsarian world. “Civil governments would have existed in the state of integrity. I am aware that important figures in the Christian tradition, such as Augustine and Martin Luther, explicitly denied the necessity of civil government for an unfallen world.” (p. 70). “The ordering agent of civil society, even in a prelapsarian word, is civil government. Its original function is not to restrain sin, since it orders an unfallen people. Its purpose is positive: it reconciles the diverse interest of families and vocations in order to establish and maintain civil peace.” (p. 72). “We can also conclude that a natural aristocracy would arise in each community to rule, establishing a rule by the best.” (p. 72). This is where Wolfe enters into dangerous territory. His premise for a prelapsarian world is built upon a system that does not necessitate the presence of God. For in his reasoning, man would still need to create a system of government to ensure that man was living according to their goodness, that they would need to create laws to maintain peace, and that an aristocracy would be installed because even in a perfectly united world unaffected by sin, people would still need to be ruled by a privileged class of people who held superior powers over the commoners. This is damning. In no theological or biblical sense is Wolfe’s prelapsarian hypothetical reasonable. A world before the fall, before the entrance of sin, before God was separated from man and woman and all of creation; there would be perfect community, perfect morality, perfect unity with all living and created things. God would be in community with these pre-fallen men and women. God would be physically amongst them, communicating, guiding, ordering, maintaining. There would be no system of aristocrats, no system of civil governance, and no body of legislation since God would be actively a part of the prelapsarian world. Man would not need to submit to laws, nor trust those laws for their good or for the assistance of loving their neighbor because God would be actively with them. For their trust, their submission, and their assistance would only be God. 

In Wolfe’s hypothetical prelapsarian world, violence would also be allowed. "Indeed, many theologians believe that one of Adam’s covenantal tasks was protecting the garden and killing the serpent (and other creatures) that threatened its peace.” (p. 74). I’m suspicious of this claim, first, because he states, “many theologians” and fails to back up this suggestion with any note or footnote. What theologians is he suggesting? We do not know. Also, where is there any evidence of this suggestion in Scripture? Although there isn’t much said in Genesis before the entrance of sin, we do have enough to suggest that death, violence, and danger did not exist. In fact, the first instance of violence was a consequence of Adam and Eve’s disobedience when God “made clothing from skins for the man and his wife” (Genesis 3:21). If it was within Adam’s covenantal duty to kill the serpent for threatening their peace, then God would have condemned them for failing to kill the serpent rather than condemn them for eating from the tree of knowledge. But theology is not what Wolfe cares for, for his goal is justifying nationalism. Therefore, rationalizing divinely ordained violence is a necessity. 

“Thus, physical violence was always a possibility both from sinful individuals and groups. Countering such violence with violence is the ordinary means to preserve one’s life and the lives of those under your care… The duty to conduct violence to preserve the good was not divinely authorized after the fall. It is a duty for man in all possible states, except the state of glory.” (p. 75). Wolfe states that humanity is naturally inclined to martial virtue and martial excellence. But not all humanity, of course, only the men. “Since martial virtues involve physical strength, men would typically have this duty, and some degree of marital skill would be required of all men, as a necessary feature of their masculinity. This is the case not because all would hunt of necessarily take part in military drills, but because each would need to protect his household. Martial virtue is, therefore, a necessary feature of masculine excellence, and effeminacy is no less a vice in a state of integrity that a postlapsarian world.” (p. 76). I need to remind us of all that Wolfe is still speaking of a world before the fall. He is saying men should have martial ideation, some for hunting, some for war, some for protection, in a perfect world. Logically, this makes no sense. Wolfe’s prelapsarian world quickly sounds like a world of sin and danger, not like the Garden of Eden. Wolfe cannot imagine a world where patriarchy and aesthetic masculinity are not fundamentally a part of the fabric. 

Chapter One is summed up as a hypothetical tale of aesthetic masculinity in a world that existed before the Fall. Yet, despite being prelapsarian, Wolfe insists that war, violence, danger, death, and threats would be present. Wolfe also fails to realize that in a pre-fallen world, God is perfectly united with everything He created. Rather than speaking of God’s position in this prelapsarian world, Wolfe does not mention God once. Rather, he begs that civil government would be the means of man’s preservation and good. I’ll end my review of Chapter One by asking a question; does the Garden of Eden sound like Wolfe’s prelapsarian world? 

Chapter II: Redeemed Nations: What is Man? Part II: Fall and Redemption. 

“Having discussed man in his state of innocence, we now turn to the states of sin and grace.” (p. 81). I was confused reading this opening line for chapter two. The state of man in Wolfe’s first chapter was not very innocent. Innocence would not suggest that man would need to kill, that man would need to have war-like thinking, that man would need systems of submission over other man. But we see Wolfe’s justification for creating a hostile prelapsarian theory in a few sentences after the opening; “In other words, what changed and what stayed the same in human society before and after the fall?” (p. 81). In his defense, Wolfe is also going to build the case for why segregation of races (he calls them “nations” to soften the impact). “We can further conclude that the diversity of nations throughout history is not a product of the fall but of human nature.” (p. 88). Again, I’ll remind the reader of this throughout, think about Genesis 1-2, before to the fall. Does Wolfe’s theory of his pre-fallen world align with that in Scripture? No. And this is another example of him creating hypotheticals that are not biblical. “Civil government is not, in origin, a post-fall ad hoc institution only to preserve sinful mankind. It is necessary by the nature of man and serves for his good.” (P. 88). “Again, civil government was necessary, from beginning, to establish and preserve social relations for our good.” (p. 89). The interesting thing for me is to hear how convinced Wolfe is that a civil government was created in the beginning, all without providing any real source outside of his own convictions. “Civil government, which would have been a necessary feature of unfallen life…” (p. 91). Again, I note the many times that he insists that civil government was a part of God’s Genesis creation because his hypothesis needs to be called out and held accountable. The issue is that he is building a case for a Christian nation while ignoring the Christian tradition, ignoring the Bible, and ignoring logic. This will be a reoccurring issue throughout the entirety of this book. There is a troubling lack of Scripture and a troubling number of fabricated fairytales to justify his case. 

In part 2 of this chapter, Wolfe steps into a more theological area by discussing the state of grace and the means of reconciling sinful man to God. Wolfe insists that man’s original gift was that of dominion, domination, and civil virtue. All of this was supposedly given to Adam for him to live out. Thus, redeemed man is redeemed back into Adam’s state and also given all of Adam’s glory. Per Wolfe, Adam received favor from God through his works. This is mistaken. Adam was never going to be saved or redeemed by his works because there was simply nothing for Adam and Eve to be saved from. If there was no sin, there was no purpose for salvation. Yet, Wolfe implies that Adam was under a covenant of works. What’s most troubling with this is the mere idolization of Adam from Wolfe. For Wolfe, redeemed men have been redeemed to Adam and Adam’s state. Wolfe says that eternal life is given by faith in Christ (p. 92), but we are redeemed to Adam rather than Christ. “Redeemed man is not only restored to Adam’s state of integrity; he is given a full deposit of the glory promised to Adam.” (p. 92). Theologically, how would Christians be redeemed into a sinful man such as Adam? Christ is the second Adam, the truly perfect one. Paul states in Romans 8:29, “For those he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son…” The New Testament says that the redeemed will be redeemed into the image of Jesus, which is proper since Jesus is the perfected Adam. But, for Wolfe, redemption is all about dominion. Thus, his end is to suggest we are saved through Christ, but we are redeemed to Adam. Because for Wolfe, Adam was the original governor of the land, the first patriarch, and the first one to be told to have dominion over the world. Through this false fetishization of dominion and conquest, Wolfe needs Adam to be this divine monarch so that he can justify his vision of Christian Nationalism. “Therefore, since grace restores to us the same gifts that Adam possessed, we are equipped for the same sort of works. Whatever tasks Adam had, Christians too have those tasks, for those tasks are the only telos of those gifts by their nature.” (p. 96). 

Wolfe begins to imply that we must bring heaven to earth as a means to our ultimate end of getting to heaven. “…Christians order earthly life according to natural principles to support their journey to heaven.” (p. 98). This also brings us back to the dangerous idolization and bad theology of Wolfe’s view of Adam. “Being in Christ restores us to Adam’s moral responsibilities, including taking dominion under God, not as a matter of achieving eternal life, but as a matter of sanctification and of exercising the gifts restored to us. To state things differently for clarity: Since a Christian—having restored integrity—possesses the same gifts as Adam, he his equipped and drawn, by his nature, to exercise the same sort of dominion—to mature earthly life according to its principles and to order the world to the next".” (pp. 98-99). There’s no Scripture Wolfe uses to justify or prove his stance, simply because this is not supported by Scripture. Again, the issue is that we are not restored to Adam, rather we are restored to Christ. We are restored to our perfect union with God, not back to conquering the world.

Wolfe also begins his justification for hierarchies of love and inequality in this chapter. “A Christian should love his children over other children, his parents over other parents, his kin over other kin, his nation over other nations… Grace did not, despite what is popularly suggested, introduce equal love for all, or an overriding duty to abstract ‘marginalized’ or to the abstract ‘outcasts’ or to ‘identify with the weak.’ There are no ‘Gospel duties’ that undermine duties to those who are closely bound to you. Grace affirms these natural hierarchies of love.” (p. 101). These sentences are possibly some of the most ignorant of Wolfe’s book because they show his extreme lack of biblical literacy. John 13:34-35: “I give you a new command, Love one another. Just as I have loved you, you are also to love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Jesus does not mince his words when he simply tells us that we are to love one another. There is also not a hierarchy of how we are to love. Rather, Jesus simply says to love like he loves us. Wolf claims there is no “equal love”, yet this command from Jesus sounds pretty equal. His claim that we are also not called to show duty or mercy to outcasts, the weak, or the marginalized is simply ignorant. Jesus’ ministry was built upon showing mercy, love, and grace to the ones the Pharisees refused. The Gospels are full of stories of Jesus being with the weak and outcasted. Then Wolfe says that there are no duties to undermine those we are closest to is false. Again, the evidence is found in the words of Jesus; “The one who loves a father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; the one who loves a son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” (Matthew 10: 37). Of course, Jesus isn’t saying to disrespect or to hate our families, but there is a clear message in the Gospel that our duty to follow Christ is much more important than our duty to those closely bound to us. 

Another incredible theological error of Wolfe’s is his claim, “The Gospel did not inaugurate a social program that rejects the basic structures of pre-Gospel social life.” (pp. 103-104). Again, this is simply false. Jesus did introduce an entire new social life through the Gospels. The reason the Pharisees and the Romans were threatened by Jesus was because he and his followers were disrupting the social norms of the first century. He was showing mercy and favor to the people who were forgotten by the Roman state. He was allowing outcasts to have a seat at the table. He was walking with sinners and lepers. What Jesus was doing was more than just spiritual; it was very much counter to the culture he was in. Yet, again, Wolfe is purposely misleading the readers of his book because he needs to justify his ends. So, by insisting that Jesus wasn’t changing the social life, he can then say that “pastors should not, in their official capacities at least, be social activists or political coordinates, especially from the pulpit.” (p. 104). Because simply put, Christian Nationalism isn’t about freeing society from bondage as much as it’s about subjecting society into bondage. Wolfe does not want anyone threatening the reign of CN, and because it’s antithetical to the Bible, Wolfe is preemptively trying to squash any opposition from those who preach the truth. 

Keeping along with his false prelapsarian theory, Wolfe continues to build the case that nations are inherent to mankind, because, according to him, “the nation and the affections of nationhood are natural to man as man, grace does not undermine, subvert, or destroy them.” (p. 106). Even with his false attempt to include nationalities, nations, and civil governments in the pre-fallen Eden, Wolfe would still be wrong on another account. Wolfe begins to build his “two-kingdoms” theology. Rather than going off of Augustine’s two-kingdoms theory that was told through the City of God, Wolfe goes the opposite. Rather than saying that God is sovereign over both heaven and earth, only one is eternal and one is full of strife and will perish. Wolfe suggests that earthly kingdoms are equally as good as the heavenly kingdom since the earthly kingdom aligns people into entering the heavenly kingdom. “It follows that the grace of salvation, which brings one into the spiritual kingdom of Christ, does not sever one from his distinct, national way of life—far from it. Indeed, the glory and honor of nations was destined to be in the state of glory.” (p. 108). Our union with Christ post-salvation does detach us from this world and our nation. Just as Christ is not of this world, neither are we; our kingdom becomes the heavenly. Wolfe continues to misuse the two-kingdoms doctrine by stating, “Christians should affirm the nation and nationality and even seek to order their nations to heavenly life.” (p. 108). Whereas most reformed theologians would suggest that while we are both citizens of both kingdoms, the earthly kingdom is not ours. Augustine would advocate that the world would be a kingdom of decay, and that redemption would come, but only through the hands of the redemptive God. Not by the hands of the nations, simply because, nations cannot save. Although nations can be somewhat moral (no nation is all-out moral), humanist moralism, even national moralism, is not capable or sufficient to save and redeem people. Wolfe suggests that nations can redeem sinful people through “cultural Christianity” (he speaks more on this is further chapters). 

“The church is a kingdom of grace for eternal life, but in consequence of grace, man is restored to nature and thus is restored to the original mission of Adam with regard to dominion. This is the mission of the people of God.” (p. 111). The obsession with Adam and dominion is something that should spark our curiosity. Why does Wolfe view Adam and dominion in more esteem than anyone else in the Scripture? Also, why is Adam the sole person we are redeemed to from our salvation? One should ask themselves where does Jesus fit into Wolfe’s theology? One should also ask if our mission is truly to seek dominion. Were this so, would this not be stated in the New Testament when we were given the new covenant that we live under through Christ? I beg to differ. Through Christ, the one that we are redeemed to, has given us our mission. The mission for God’s people has been plainly stated by God, through Christ. “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20). Wolfe, falsely, states that our mission is to dominate nations, to conquer, to grasp power. Christ tells us that our mission is to evangelize the nations, to share his grace, to baptize, and to make disciples. One is about conquering and dominating, the other is about freedom. 

“We can enjoy the things of this world with a true and good conscience, for they are truly ours in Christ. Also, our disposition toward all good things, even those possessed by unbelievers, should be informed by the fact that they are ours in Christ. To be sure, we have no license to seize these things for ourselves, but by this disposition we can stand over the world as the true heirs of the world, even this world, for (as Bavinck states) ‘substantially nothing is lost’ in the final reformation of all things. This world is not eradicated in substance but made more excellent.” (p. 115). Again, Wolfe insists that we are to be conquers of this world. Even suggesting that everything this world gives is ours by inheritance as if we are some pesky entitled heirs to a family estate. Not only is he badly mistaken, but he is also furthering his justification by being a relativist. Wolfe is again at odds with the very words of Jesus. “They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.” (John 17:16). Jesus states throughout the Gospels that his kingdom is not Earth, so why does Wolfe so badly oppose this? It’s clearly about power. Christian Nationalism cares very little for anything that is not absolute authority and power. This is why Wolfe admits that even things that are possessed by unbelievers are still “ours”. We should clarify who the “ours” is that Wolfe speaks about. The ones to benefit from Wolfe’s hypotheticals are the white men who own land, who hold to Wolfe’s theological preferences, and who come from Americana-born families rather than immigrated families. Another error on Wolfe’s part is his suggestion that this world will not be eradicated in substance. What Wolfe fails to understand is that sin has affected the very fabric of all creation. “For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together with labor pains until now.” (Romans 8:22). The entire substance of this earth will be eradicated because sin has corrupted it. The New Heaven and the New Earth will be exactly that; new. 

Wolfe comically ends this chapter by contradicting himself to his early claim in the introduction that he is not a theologian or bible scholar so he would not be attempting any such thing. “This and the previous chapter established the background anthropology and theology for the rest of the book.” (p. 115). While theology is not excluded to only theologians, what Wolfe is doing is attempting to avoid correction up front and then contradicting himself later on to establish his opinions. What we see is not someone who understands theology. Rather we see someone who’s a social segregationist hiding behind theology. We see someone who thinks faith prohibits authoritarianism and allows moral relativism for the benefit of a singular ethnic, geographical, and political few to obtain unchecked power. “Neither grace nor the unity of faith, nor the spiritual kingdom of God, nor the instituted church undermines or subverts the nation. Grace does not destroy what is natural but restores it. Grace also perfects nature, and thus nations can be Christian nations and commonwealths and be Christian commonwealths.” (p. 116). Read that again. Nothing, not even grace, not even faith, not even heaven, not even the universal church can be more important than the nation. Nothing can undermine the nation. Tell me, what does Wolfe believe? Does he sound like someone who believes in Scripture, or does it sound like someone who only believes in power? Not even the church that Christ built can overcome the nation. We have a problem, and Wolfe needs to be held to his words for their heresy. 

Chapter III: Loving Your Nation: The Nation and Nationalism.

“The instinct to love the familiar more than the foreign is good and remains operative in all spiritual states of man” (p. 118). Wolfe continues to build upon his thesis that there is a hierarchy of love and that the love one feels for their immediate surrounding is objectively more important than anything else. Here, Wolfe is once again only promoting nationalistic ideology and ignoring every instinct of the Christian tradition. For Wolfe and for CN, the question of “who is my neighbor” is not who Jesus taught in Luke 18. Rather, the neighbor for CN is their kin. For Wolfe, loving the foreigner is not important since the foreigner is not familiar to him. It does not matter if the foreigner is a Christian because Christian unity is not enough for Wolfe. Again, as he stated in the last chapter, nothing can supersede nationalism, not even the unity of the faith. Wolfe is not ashamed to be so segregationist and impartial to his neighbor. “One might accuse me of assuming and norming the “Western European male” experience in this chapter. I am not worried about this, since I am male, and am rooted ancestrally in Western Europe, and am speaking largely to a Western European male audience. I fully acknowledge that my goal is to reinvigorate Christendom in the West—that is my chief aim. The question for most of my audience is, “Which way, Western Man—the suicide of the West or its revitalization.” (pp. 118-119). 

It’s important to note that Wolfe is quoting a white nationalist when he says, “Which way Western Man?”. This is not irony, it is propaganda. William Gayley Simpson popularized the term in his 1978 book titled, Which Way Western Man? Some of the quotes from that book are:

“I am not naturally a man of violence, but there is one thing from the thought of which I shrink more than from violence or its consequences, and that is the thought that our people may not rise to throw off the death that is being clamped upon them.”

“Let me preface what I am about to say by declaring frankly that I am prepared to accept violence on the part of our people. The Jews’ hold on our throat is not going to be relaxed until we break their grip. Hitler felt that he had to take to the streets. All normal approach to his people was barred. Today, we are confronted with much the same situation here.”

It should not be taken lightly that Wolfe is promoting the same dog whistle from a Nazi sympathizer, white nationalist, and an antisemite. If you want to find the marrow of the CN core, just look at who they quote. 

In an attempt to distinguish why a person’s home is more important than another person’s home—which is a lousy argument because of course my home is more important to me than someone’s home four states over—Wolfe shows his inability to be logical. “Thus, our world in experience is thoroughly placial; our world is one of places, each place having meaning that exists only in our human or cultural relation to the spaces. In this sense, our world is a sort of life-world, having been enlivened for and by us in a subject/object relation.” (p. 122). I fail to understand what Wolfe is saying in this word salad. Of course we experience this world as placial, for it is, literally, a place. And when he says, “our world is a sort of life-world”, he must assume he’s being profound but he is stating a fact. The world is no “a sort of life-world”, it is a life-world. This is something I find often in Wolfes’s book, sentences that are incredibly redundant and incredibly unnecessary. He then continues to show his ignorance once more by mistaking the sciences. “According to a naturalistic stance, we could explain this with neuroscience or psychology, but those explanations do not describe lived experience, and, despite the naturalistic biases that prevail in our time, it is by the everyday mode of life that we dwell in this world.” (p. 125). Continuing on his explanation of how familiar social places carry more fondness for the individual, Wolfe seems to mistake psychology for sociology. Sociology is the discipline that helps us engage the society in which we exist. He even uses sociological terms in the previous page (“placial”). Also, neuroscience and psychology can also help us understand why a place has significance for a human, so his entire statement is illogical. 

Of course, Wolfe’s incomprehensible section on place, home, and meaning is not about one’s house or one’s possessions; it’s about nationalism. For Wolfe, the nation should be viewed as one owns home; it should be his, it should look like him, it should have the same cultural views as him, it should believe like him. The nation should be distinctly particular to the “Western Man” (“Western” is interchangeable with “white” for Wolfe and CN). This is when Wolfe begins his racist and segregationist arguments. “[N]o nation (properly speaking) is composed of two or more ethnicities.” (p. 135). 

“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.” (p. 139). This is kinism; the racist idea that social order is tribal and familial, and that family order should not be tainted by outside tribes. “We should not, however, disregard the work of intermarriage over time in creating bonds of affection” (p. 139). For Wolfe, “a community in blood is crucial to ethnicity.” (p. 140). A CN cannot be a nation of mixed blood, interracial marriage, or home to the foreign. Again, tell me if this is Christian. I’ll answer that; it is not. It’s nationalism, and it’s racist. 

“Particulars make possible the highest form of social life, for through them one knows another as he knows himself. One is able to love another as himself.” (p. 142). It’s interesting that Wolfe takes the Christian principle of loving one another and attaches it to nationalistic ideology. Again, proving my point that Wolfe is a relativist. Scripture simply tells us to love one another as we love ourselves. It does not prescribe this love to only those who share our particulars. “That is, by nature (which grace does not destroy) people are led to create and maintain societies of similar people, for only in societies of similar people can people achieve the complete good.” (pp. 142-143). Wolfe is still building his hypothesis off of a faulty premise. According to him, humanity’s inclination to have various languages, various cultures, various societies, and separation is inherent to their nature. This nature was founded in Wolfe’s prelapsarian theory. For Wolfe, humanity has always been made of different cultures, of different nations, and of diverse but separate societies. This, again, is faulty. For any clear reading of Genesis 1-2 will show us that there was never any amount of division or separate nations in the pre-fallen world. But for Wolfe to justify his ends, he has to allow himself to say that cultural segregation is permissible. For Wolfe, only when you are surrounded by people who share your ethnicity, who share your politics, who share your language and morals can you truly exercise your highest love. “Hence, the preference for these who are similar is natural and arises not necessarily from maliciousness toward those who are dissimilar. Similarity enables you to exercise the highest love to your fellow man and to receive the highest love in return.” (p. 143). 

Wolfe is a segregationist in its literal term. Segregation is to separate people of differing races, genders, nationalities, etc. from a different collection of people. This is what Wolfe is promoting, except he is hiding it behind softer language like “particularity”. Simply, Wolfe believes that a nation cannot thrive until it is made of a collection of people who are white (Western European descent), who are Christian (according to Wolfe’s understanding), and who share a similar national identity (physical and spiritual attachment to your nation). He confirms my suspicions rather clearly. “Nor can we live well among contrary particulars; there must be a normal to which all conform or assimilate, at least in order for people to live well together. Thus, an instinct for a suitable normal is a good instinct; so too is the moral expectation that people conform to that normal or else face some degree of social separation.” (p. 144). Wolfe simply wants the opposite system of what the French practice, laïcité. The movement of cultural secularization. The practice that separation of Church and state is not enough, rather the state should not have any outward influence of religion at all. Wolfe wants the same extreme, but the opposite. Wolfe wants a society of Christian supremacy, rather more precise, theonomic supremacy. For Wolfe, if you are not outwardly practicing the tenants of his particulars, you ought to be separated from society. 

“When foreigners enter in mass, they undermine and disrupt the host people’s civil fellowship and symbiosis, generating hostility and antipathy. The idea that ‘diversity destroys unity,’ as Althusius wrote, was well recognized in the Christian tradition.” (p. 146). First, I’ll start by tackling Wolfe’s claim that when foreigners enter a nation, that they bring hostility. This is propaganda because any rational, mature, and capable human would not feel disdain or threat by people immigrating to their nation. The only way a person would feel that their entire life has been disrupted by immigration is if that person is entirely selfish and incapable of functioning in the real world. It’s antithetical to Christian doctrine to have hostility and antipathy for anyone since our faith trumps our national identity and any prejudicial preference. Then when Wolfe uses Althusius to justify his segregationist ideology, he misrepresents him. Wolfe would like for us to assume Althusius is discussing the public life of the masses when he says, “diversity destroys unity.” Rather, Althusius is discussing the ecclesial matters. His concerns were that many outside faiths were bringing their various idolizations within the Christian church and that this would lead to the destruction of the church’s unity. What’s most concerning is that Wolfe either truly believes this, or that he is incredibly illiterate. He doesn’t just affirm his misunderstandings; he goes so far as to suggest that his prejudice is justified in Christian tradition when he fails to understand said Christian tradition. 

Continuing, Wolf begins to tackle the already answered question of “who is my neighbor?” “Christians will ask, ‘Aren’t we called to love all equally?’ assuming the affirmative answer is obvious. But despite modern Christian sentiment, a quick glance at the Christian tradition (and mild reflection on one’s own relationships) reveals the almost ubiquity of the opposite view—that the intensity of love varies by degree according to similarity and the extent that another is bound to you.” (p. 149). Again, Wolfe seems to complicate something that Jesus has made simple for us. John 13:34-35 has covered how we should love, the answer is “as we love ourselves”. No degree of love that is to be given to others we prefer. Another issue is that Wolfe stated previously he is not a biblical scholar, nor a theologian. Yet here we see him attempting to argue against Scripture. This proves his ignorance. He admits he isn’t equipped, yet he builds his entire argument upon his own ignorance. Within all of Wolfe’s “who is my neighbor” arguments, he, predictably, never quotes any Scripture to justify his claims. This isn’t because he’s lazy; it’s because his claims are unbiblical. “[B]ut the Christian moral tradition has distinguished near and far neighbors.” (p. 150). It has not, and he provides no source to back this claim. “There is a difference between a basic love for all and greater love for those nearer to you.” (p. 150). “It is also evident, from both instinct and reason, that we ought to prefer our own nation and countrymen over others. This instinct is not from the fall or due to sin; it is natural and, therefore, good.” (pp. 150-151). What Wolfe is doing is calling the effects of sin, “good,” and this is troubling. For Wolfe, it is a good thing that man has been separated, put against one another, made to envy other nations, made to envy other ethnicities. All of this is “natural” to Wolfe. 

“Thus, to encounter a countryman is to encounter oneself—to be, in a sense, with ones’ self.” (p. 157). Wolfe is still building upon the idea that segregation is good, but that it should also be inherent to us as people. What’s off with this claim is that he uses the term “countryman.” The issue here is that he simply rejects Christianity and replaces it with “countryman.” For Wolfe, it’s much more preferable to be united to his fellow white nationalistic countrymen than it is to be united to his Christian brother from Iraq.

“Nothing that is natural to man, according to his design, can in itself be idolatrous.” (p. 162). Again, tell me how Wolfe is not a relativist when he is constantly conforming his morality to fit his narrative. 

The next section of Wolfe’s chapter 3 enters into a racist and nationalistic rage fit. I will quote these statements and then respond. But I was Wolfe’s hate to be seen before my rebuttal. “The foreigner should mute his own customary ways.” (p. 168). “But the foreigner has a duty not to disrupt the host people’s way of life, and the hosts have every right to hold such people to these duties, even to the point of deportation.” (p. 168). “Moreover, nations have every right to make strict conditions for receiving people into civil fellowship (e.g., conferring citizenship). 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.” (p. 168). “Western man is enamored of his ideology of universality; it is the chief and only ground for self-regard. His in-group is all people—it is a universal in-group. Everyone is an object of his beneficence. But in perverse fashion he is his own in-group’s out-group. The object of his regard is the non-Westerner at the Westerners expense—a bizarre self-denigration rooted in guilt and malaise. Loss and humiliation is the point, however. It is euphoric to him; his own degradation is thrilling. This is his psycho-sexual ethno-masochism, the most pernicious illness of the Western mind.” (p.169). 

First, Wolfe wants everyone who is not a white, third-generation, American man to not have a cultural identity. For Wolfe, diversity is a cancer that needs to be excised. If we do not honor Wolfe’s prejudice, he wants us deported. I say “us” because Wolfe is talking to me. His “newcomers should not receive citizenship until the second or third generation of residence” would affect my citizenship. Some of my great-grandparents were born in the UK. This would mean that much of my family would not be seen as American, and thus, would be at the risk of being deported. Then, Wolf’s unhinged tirade about the psychosexual thrill of Western man’s universality is truly one of the most illogical, deranged, and disturbing things I have ever read. Wolfe cannot fathom the idea of equality and acceptance outside the bounds of some strange Freudian psychosexual justification. For Wolfe to view diversity through this lens is disturbing. For Wolfe, he has made ethnic diversity into a fetish, a sort of fantasy that Western man seek for their eroticism. This is much more telling about Wolfe than anything. His projections are truly unhinged. 

Chapter IV: Perfecting your Nation: The Christian Nation.

“A Christian nation is a nation whose particular earthly way of life has been ordered to heavenly life in Christ, having been perfected by Christian revelation as grace perfects nature, without undermining that particularity but rather strengthening it so that the people might achieve the complete good.” (p. 174). There is no biblical support to think that Christ has perfected a nation. This is where wording matters. For Wolfe, the nation is literal. He does not speak of a nation in terms of its people, but rather its landmass. For Wolfe, when he speaks of a nation, it’s the place, it’s the landmass, it’s the geopolitical entity. So, to say Christ has redeemed the nation, the bordered landmass, is ridiculous. Wolfe believes that a nation is a social organism; something with a soul and self-awareness. Then he states this Christian nation has been perfected by Christian revelation yet states no biblical support. He also assumes that this revelation would further strengthen humanity’s isolation from each other. Because, according to Wolfe’s logic, perfection consists of prejudice.

“The Christian nation, therefore, is the nation perfected, for Christianity makes possible the national ordering of all things to the complete good, thereby fulfilling the ends of the nation. Just as grace clarifies for sinful man his true end and supplies the means to attain it, Christianity completes the nation by ordering the law, customs, and social expectations to heavenly life. Nations have always, even for prelapsarian Adam, had the duty to acknowledge God and orient themselves collectively to his heavenly kingdom; indeed, this is the chief end of nations. The Christian nation, therefore, has not transcended the nation according to nature but has fulfilled it; it is complete in form.” (pp. 174-175). I don’t suppose Wolfe knows this, for I assume he truly believes this is Christian orthodoxy, but he is simply preaching animism. The idea that objects, places, and things have a spiritual essence. It’s alarming to say what Wolfe says, “Christianity completes the nation.” Wolfe truly does believe that a sociopolitical land mass is in the overarching narrative of Christ’s redemptive work. Wolfe doesn’t think this applies to just people who accept Christ, but that an inanimate object can gain animation, and then be saved by grace. I also want to state that this is again built upon a fallacy of Wolfe’s creation. Again, he insists that nations, as he believes, were functioning before the Fall. There is zero proof of this in Scripture. Nowhere does the Bible conjecture that there were complete and functional nations with civil governments functioning in the prelapsarian world. So, Wolfe is justifying his case on a fairytale of his imagination.

“Christianity sanctifies nations but does not eliminate national distinctions.” (p. 175). We are told through Scripture that heaven is full of every tribe, tongue, and nation. If this is the image of heaven, and if our prayer is that God’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven, would we not want our nations and or communities to mirror the unity and beauty of heaven? Yet, for Wolfe, and his case for CN, he wants the distinctions, the segregation, the particularities, and the racial and gender separation to remain. Not even sanctification is capable of ridding out the hateful power of Christian Nationalism.

Wolfe continues on this dangerous claim that Christian Nations are still to remain ethnically distinct by suggesting that even Christians from other nations should not be comfortable in his Christian Nation simply because they come from different cultures and different ethnicities. “No Christian child could seamlessly join another Christian family without discomfort and disorientation. The same is true of Christian nations. Their members are not seamlessly interchangeable. The universal truths of Christianity do not nullify national particularity. Each Christian nation has a distinct way of life.” (p. 176). This is national idolization and Wolfe should repent of this. It’s not simply wrong to reject a Christian brother or sister based upon their skin color or nationality, it’s sinful, it’s evil, and it’s damnable. This, bluntly, is not Christlike. This is not coming from someone whose heart is being molded into Jesus’. Wolfe cares much, much more about nationality than he does faith. He admits this without feeling any shame. He continues this hellish defense by suggesting that a nation is a Christian home that is preparing us for heaven, and because of that, only Christians in that particular homeland will reap the benefits. Other Christians from other nations shouldn’t come to Wolfe’s nation because his nation is helping him get to heaven, not others. “The place of a Christian people is a Christian land—a homeland preparing then for a better home. Being a place of their activity and of their ancestors, this land is their Christian country, their Christian homeland. Their Christian ancestry speaks through it, as a mode of discipleship in Christian faith and life, and only they can hear it. Their Christian homeland is not suitable for all Christians, let alone all mankind.” (p. 179). I want to say this: if your Christian home/homeland is not suitable for other Christians, then it is not Christian. Our unity of faith trumps every other modifier. Our faith in Christ unites us eternally; it transcends race, nationality, and gender. Wolfe idolizes nationalism. This national idolization heresy. Wolfe’s CN is heresy. There is no sugarcoating this. “Christian homeland is a mode of true religion; it directs you to your ultimate home. Thus, serving one’s Christian homeland is serving the kingdom of God.” (p. 179).

Wolfe’s faith has little to do with Christ. Yet it has much to do with nationalism. For Wolfe, grace and faith don’t lead to be made more like Christ, it makes you more aware of Christian nationalism. “Affirming both the principles of nature and the truth of grace necessarily leads to Christian nationalism or, if you prefer different terms, to the traditional claims of Christendom.” (p. 186). Again, Wolfe only justifies my concerns with his own words. For him, everything points to nationalism. Even grace points him towards nationalism. There is no logical reason for him to conclude this, but Wolfe is constantly proving himself to be illogical. For neither the principles of nature lead one to nationalism. But I assume that Wolfe is very little aware of what the principles, or laws, of nature are. His entire worldview is seen through the eyeglasses of nationalism. So much so that he can’t even read the Gospels without superseding nationalism into the final works of Christ’s atonement.

“Since the fall did not change the good or fundamental nature of man, the fall did not alter the design of civil government; and hence, civil government in a postlapsarian world can and ought to order man to all his original ends.” (p. 189). How are we to look to this man as a leader of anything bearing the name “Christian” when he misunderstands the effect of sin? How does he truly believe that sin did not change the good or nature of man? Again, remember, Wolfe is not a biblical scholar. Yet, this is no excuse for this lousy reading of Scripture about something so simple as the effects of sin on our nature.

Of course, in a chapter titled, “Perfecting your Nation,” Wolfe will include a section justifying the exclusion of other Christians. “Since the Christian nation is not merely a nation of Christians, we have to address the issue of foreign Christian immigration. On what grounds can a Christian nation exclude fellow Christians from their land?” (p. 199). You may ask if Wolfe will support this argument with Scripture or theology, to which I will go ahead and answer you, no. “My view is that the principle of exclusion, which is necessary for a people’s complete good, morally permits a Christian nation to deny immigration to Christian foreigners. Christian nations are not required to exclude them, but they can in principle.” (p. 199). Nothing shows Christian love and unity to your fellow brother by telling them, “You’re not welcomed in my home.” Wolfe attempts to justify this stance by claiming we are only united in Christ by spiritual means, not physical. This is theologically wrong. Paul speaks on the unity of the body in 1 Corinthians 12 in both spiritual terms and physical terms. Telling us that we are spiritually united as the body of Christ, but that we also bear the pains and honor as each other. We cannot feel the suffering of our Christian brothers and sisters if we are not physically united with them. Again, I’ll ask the question that if you cannot live well with a Christian from another nation, you are not a Christian. Nationality does not supersede Christian unity.

Continue to listen to how Wolfe tries to justify his disdain for fellow Christians purely based on ethnicity; “Unity in Christ does not entail or provide unity in earthly particulars, which are necessary for living well in this world.” (p. 200). “Thus, receiving masses of people who are similar with regard to faith, and dissimilar in other ways is generally bad policy.” (p. 201). “A self-confident Christian nation will be hospitable to its spiritual brothers and sisters, but they will not be self-destructive or easily manipulated.” (p. 203). Wolfe cannot help himself but view others outside of his ethnicity or nationality as hostile. Not even a fellow Christian is safe from Wolfe’s prejudice.

But don’t worry, Wolfe’s prejudices are not due to sin. It’s perfectly within biblical morality for Wolfe to view Christian outsiders as suspects. “It is not due to sin that dissimilar people cannot (ordinarily) achieve together what similar people can achieve. It is not sin’s fault that ‘diversity destroys unity’” (p. 204). Au contraire, it is entirely sin’s fault for this. Sin is the lone culprit for humanity’s disunity, with itself, and with God.

Chapter V: The Good of Cultural Christianity.

Seeing the title of this chapter, I made assumptions about the entirety of Wolfe’s purpose for writing this book. He cares little about the true work of faith in the individual’s life. He does not care for the health of the Christian church, nor does he care for the real discipleship of new believers. His work is not to use the nation for further Christianity. His work is to use Christianity to further nationalism. And calling his terms of “Christian” true Christianity is generous. Whatever Wolfe suggests is “Christian” is separating farther and farther from any biblical truth the further we get along in his book.

“In a Christian nation, social power is placed in the service of the Christian religion. I call this use of social power ‘cultural Christianity,’ a term that has become an object of derision.” (p. 208). Naturally so, cultural Christianity has created a crisis of identity for many people. Cultural Christianity is nothing more than a confusion of truth; it’s simply moralistic therapeutic deism. The idea is that one is a Christian simply because they live relatively moral lives and assume the existence of God. But, again, Wolfe is not concerned about the souls of people as much as he’s concerned about power. Thus, for him, the cost of mass confusion from cultural Christianity is worth it if he can reap the power it gives him. Moreover, Wolfe again shows his ignorance of the faith by stating, “The Christian religion as delivered through culture prepares people to receive the Gospel and encourages them to start on the path to eternal life.” (p. 208). For Wolfe, the Gospel is delivered via culture. So, whoever controls the culture, controls the individuals’ souls. Does this not sound like fascism? Forget about Jesus giving us the Great Commission to, “Go into the world and preach the gospel” (Mark 16:15). For Wolfe, all one has to do is assume the morality of the Christian, say they believe in God, and then the Christian religion will be delivered through them.

Wolfe does give us a definition for his view of cultural Christianity, “Cultural Christianity is a mode of religion wherein social facts normalize Christian cultural practices (i.e., social customs) and a Christian self-conception of a nation in order (1) to prepare people to receive the Christian faith and keep them on the path to eternal life, (2) to establish and maintain a commodious social life, and (3) to make the earthly city an analog of heavenly city.” (p. 209). Calling cultural Christianity a “mode of religion” is an error. It is not. I speak of this because for 18 years of my life, I was someone who was a cultural Christian. I went to church now and then; I assumed God was real; I knew that I was supposed to believe in Jesus to get into heaven and so I would tell people I did if I was asked; I did my best to live as moral as culture prescribed. All of this was confusion about what Christianity is because at the end of the day, if I died, I was not saved. I did not lead people to faith because I, myself, was not of the faith. Wolfe’s entire premise for cultural Christianity’s good is built upon hopeful ignorance of what the truth is. But, again, Wolfe does not care about this. His goal is to justify a Christian nation, so those who die believing they were saved are worth the risk as long as they lived as good soldiers for Wolfe’s cause.

“This mode uses a certain species of ordering—an ordering of prejudice.” (p. 209). This should be surprising to hear coming from someone who wants to promote a Christian worldview in culture but given Wolfe’s concepts of Christian traditions and his errors, this is a predictable outcome. Wolfe has been advocating for prejudices for the entirety of his book up to now. “Prejudice is an instinctive, pre-reflective judgment on particular thoughts and actions. It is not in principle opposed to reason but perfects it, for in prejudice the heart owns what the mind can decide upon. Cultural Christianity, as a mode of Christian religion, is pre-reflective, prejudicial judgment on the righteousness of Christian belief and practice.” (pp. 209-210).

“A Christian nation as a nation has social power and as a Christian nation, this power is directed to Christian ends. Thus, Christian nations have a social force that prejudices the people for Christian belief and practice.” (p. 212). I know Wolfe is not a theologian, but this does not excuse him. If he is going to extrapolate Christian concepts, he must do so through the support of Scripture. One of the most common and basic ideas of theology is, can you source it back to the Bible? If your theology cannot be sourced back to the Bible, you have bad theology. Wolfe has bad theology because his arguments, though he claims are Christian, are not supported by the Christian bible in any sense. Therefore, Wolfe should be called out, corrected, and truthfully, should be disciplined by his church. To conclude that Christianity allows for prejudice is unbiblical and it’s something entirely antithetical to Jesus’ ministry.

Furthermore, Wolfe continues to show how little he knows about cultural Christianity, or even Christianity. “Cultural Christianity internalizes the felt duty to preform Christian practices; it engenders a heightened sense of one’s sin and need for salvation; and it forms structures of plausibility that lead people to assent to Christian belief.” (p. 213). This may be true for some, but it is not prescriptive to all, or to most. Again, I was a cultural Christian until I was 18 years old. I believed I was already saved. This is what makes cultural Christianity destructive; it leads masses to believe they don’t need salvation because the core idea of cultural Christianity is that one is already a Christian simply by fulfilling cultural norms and moral duty. Wolfe continues, and he makes very little rational sense; “We can say, therefore, that while cultural Christianity itself, as a social power, cannot bring about spiritual good, it directs people to activities wherein they can procure the things of eternal life, both inside and outside the instituted church.” (p. 213). A few sentences up, Wolfe says that cultural Christianity “engenders a heightened sense of one’s sin and need for salvation,” and then says that “[cultural Christianity] cannot bring about spiritual good.” Is he contradicting himself? Yes. In one paragraph, cultural Christianity can reveal one’s own need for Christ and spiritual renewal, while in the next paragraph he says that it cannot bring spiritual good.

“To be a good member of the people, one must be a Christian (at least outwardly), and anyone who denies Christ in word or deed is subject to social separation or other social costs.” (p. 216). Again, in a new chapter, Wolfe is still preaching segregation. Now, he wants people to be public Christians or else risk social separation and/or social costs. Ask ourselves, does this mirror the heart of Christ? No. This is also a lie. One does not need to be a Christian to be a good member of society. I’ve served alongside people of many faiths in doing good acts of service. After Hurricane Harvey, many people from many faiths, and even of no faith, worked alongside me in the recovery mission. I was invited to break Ramadan at a mosque with Muslim neighbors. They knew I was a Christian, and they knew I was committed to my faith. They wanted to share their customs with me, they wanted to hear about my faith, and they wanted to share their community with me. It was wonderful, they were charitable, and they were great neighbors. All this to say, Wolfe’s prejudices are wrong, and they are unhelpful. Sharing life with people different from you is not wrong, nor is it bad. It does not lead to apostasy or destruction. It’s also antithetical to our Christian faith to rid of those who are not of our faith. How can we faithfully serve the Great Commission if we are too busy isolating ourselves from the people God loves?

“When the body politic is baptized, all are people of God. All religious expectations are then social expectations, and the socialization of children is the socialization of young Christians.” (p. 217). “Paedobaptism is consistent with Christian nationalism because it makes possible a society that is baptized in infancy and thus is subject to Christian demands for all of life.” (p. 218). It should be no surprise that Wolfe wants to weaponize baptism for nationalism. Rather than having baptism be a sign of outward profession of faith, he wants to use it as a tool for Christian nationalists’ social indoctrination. Even more damning, he wants to subject this perverse baptism onto children, not as a sacrament of faith, but as a subjection to the state. Wolfe wants to manipulate the sacrament of baptism into a social bondage to the state. This is simply a bastardization of Christian doctrine. Taking a sacrament that is meant to be sacred and using it as a weapon of subjection.

“Eternal life is the ultimate end of cultural Christianity.” (p. 218). Again, this is an off hyper-fixation on something that is doctrinally opposed to Christian orthodoxy. Eternal life is not the ultimate end of cultural Christianity because cultural Christianity is not true faith.

“Generosity is giving a proper gift to a proper receiver when it is proper to do so.” (p. 220). Here, Wolfe is trying to speak on Christian ethics, regarding generosity and charity. Wolfe suggests that it’s improper to give a gift to someone who does not deserve it and that Christians should not be so free-willingly charitable to people. The irony of this is that it directly opposes the gospel. Wolfe wants generosity to work as a system of rewards rather than gifts. That is to say, one must do something to earn the “gift,” the “gift” must be a proper gift according to the receiver, and it must be given at a proper time. This sounds like a reward system, not generosity. It's also not a Christian ethic of love and charity. Again, we should mirror Christ with our love and charity, and there is no greater image of love than what Christ gave on the cross. We did not do anything to deserve this gift and we were not proper receivers. Yet, Christ gave us his life and blood out of generosity and love. Not because we did anything to deserve this gift, not because it was proper of him to do so, and not because we were proper receivers, but rather because he was generous and loving. “What are Christians for? They are to love, but not according to abstraction or outside context and particularity, and not without reference to social relations, shared authorities, and share particular loves.” (p. 221). Do you see how Wolfe only says that Christian love is exclusive to people like himself? The only people who deserve Christian love from Wolfe are those inside his context, inside his particularities, inside his social relations, inside his love. Imagine if this was how Jesus viewed love. The Cross would have been in vain if so. John 3:16 would not exist. Scripture would’ve read as, “For God loved some in this way. He gave his one and only Son, so that those who share similar relations and shared particulars believe in him will not perish but have eternal life.” What a sad image of the gospel.

Wolfe begins to end this chapter with some fearmongering.; where he airs his grievances about modern Western society. “But wouldn’t you prefer to live in a community where you can trust your neighbors, having mutual expectations of conduct, speech, and beliefs according to Christian standards? Wouldn’t you prefer to have neighbors with Christian standards of decency, respect, and admonishment, even if it is merely cultural? Wouldn’t you prefer some common and good standard of living by which one neighbor can confront and correct another?” (p. 223). Here's the wonderful thing about the society we live in; we can have this. We can move and choose who we share community with. So what Wolfe is trying to do is ultimately frivolous since no one is stopping anyone from seeking their preferred community. Despite this, Wolfe continues to express a self-pity rant. “Perhaps you, being a strong, independent adult, can withstand the moral degeneracy of our time. But try raising kids in today’s social environment.” (p. 223). This reads as a person who is having a tantrum. Not only that, but he continues in his urge to idolize the nation above its proper place. “The Christian nation is the complete image of eternal life on earth.” (p. 223). If Wolfe’s imagination of CN looks like what he describes, prejudice, segregation, reward-based charity, etc., eternal life will be truly just as discouraging as mortal life is now. Revelation 7:9 contradicts Wolfe’s image of eternal life. There will be no division among the saints, there will only be perfect unity and perfect equality amongst all of us, from every walk of life, every tribe, every nation. That is to say, the Christian nation is not the complete image of eternal life.

For Wolfe, religious tolerance is a threat. Having neutrality is hostile to him. There should be no equality for all to worship the religion of their choosing. This amount of freedom of conscience is too much for Wolfe. He continues on his tantrum, “How is the loss of cultural Christianity going for you? How much effort and time do you and your Christian friends devote to protecting yourselves and your children and grandchildren? How much space is your church bookshop taken up with resources to resist the evil and modern secularist life? The absence of cultural Christianity has brought hostility, not religious neutrality. The social power that might have helped convert your parents or grandparents is now actively wielded against orthodox Christianity, against your children.” (p. 227). This is all propaganda, and I would suggest that Stephen Wolfe go outside and touch grass, spend time in a local park and read your Bible, and see how peaceful life is for Christians who publicly practice their faith. He is fighting a war of his imagination. He is trying to spark fear in his readers to create radicals who believe that they are being attacked by secularists.

“Still, even in its abuse, cultural Christianity prepares people to receive Christ and provides conditions for a commodious life, and people are better off living in its abuse than in its absence.” (p. 233). This, again, is false. Cultural Christianity does not lead towards receiving Christ. The entire premise of cultural Christianity is that the person who practices it already believes that they are Christian. You cannot expect someone who already believes they are saved to organically conclude that they need to be saved to true faith. Wolfe also shows how little he cares for the souls of people because he admits that it’s worth leading people astray simply for the social power cultural Christianity would have. Is it not somewhat demonic to say that people should be comfortable with the abuse of false faith simply because the influence it has over subjecting a society is worth it? Wolfe is not preaching the gospel. He is giving affirmations to the very instance in Scripture. “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in your name, drive our demons in our name, and do many miracles in your name?’ Then I will announce to them, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you lawbreakers!’” (Matthew 7:21-23).

Chapter VI: What Laws Can and Cannot Do: Civil Law.

“However, a purported law that does not order according to reason is no law at all. That is to say, unjust laws are not laws, properly speaking, and so they do not bind the conscience to obedience.” (p. 249). To be sure, what Wolfe is doing here is creating justifications for disobeying laws that he finds to be up reasonable. In his account, if a law contradicts subjective and personal reason, that law is inherently unjust, and thus he is not expected to follow that said law. This is Wolfe’s introduction to what will soon be his argument for revolution. To justify revolution, you have to convince yourself and other rebels that your cause is just. And to do this, you need to also show that the people you’re revolting against are immoral. In one sense, Wolfe has to convince himself that he is not breaking any laws because to do that would be immoral. But, if he can convince himself that laws that he doesn’t like are not according to reason, then suddenly, they lose their ability to be proper laws and can then be ignored. This type of reasoning is moral fluidity. The idea that morality changes according to personal reasons and justifications. Moral fluidity is inherently hypocritical since it changes and molds, benefitting the beholder to justify whatever it is they want to be justified.   

“The citizen or subject is not required to affirm a law or the reason for the law but simply to obey the law; and though one may affirm the reasons behind the law, the law itself remains a command and so only requires obedience.” (p. 253). We can only assume that Wolfe is talking about laws that he affirms in this sentence, since a few sentences ago, he was suggesting that it’s perfectly within the rights of citizens to disregard laws that they viewed as unjust. This is the conformity I found hard to read throughout this chapter. It’s hard to logically follow Wolfe when his own logic is contradicting. “As for power over the conscience, implicit power can influence beliefs, such as assent to Christian truth, but civil law cannot command belief.” (p. 253). Does the New Testament ever tell of a time that Jesus, or any of the disciples, used implicit power over the conscience to force people into believing the Christian truth? No. Simply because this is not how faith works. You cannot enforce faith; faith is something that remains personal to one’s convictions and reasons. What implicit power can do is prescribe generic principles of whatever morality you’re enforcing. But it will not ascend to Christian belief. This is wishful thinking.

“Of course, communities that lack self-governability will require more law and more law enforcement.” (p. 259). This sounds very close to the justification for authoritarianism. Also, who would be the one to conclude which community is lacking self-governability and by what standards will they be judging by? This has historically been based on racist policy, and it has never worked with any success. Over-policing communities has often left communities in deep poverty and higher rates of crime. Having more police and more laws never produces good outcomes, rather, it’s better to have laws that work with that community rather than assuming they need more laws.⁶ Still yet, it’s alarming that Wolfe is so eager to suggest that a community not living up to his standard should be placed under a police state.

Wolfe, natural rights are not even natural, for in his case, they are capable of being refused. Not to get over precise on terminology, but for something to be natural would insist that it is inherent and cannot be manipulated either one way or the other. A natural right, like the right of thought, cannot be suspended. You cannot physically, or even metaphysically, suspend someone from thinking. Yet Wolfe, of course, does not understand this. “Hence, [natural rights] can be suspended but only in extraordinary times and only with extreme caution and wisdom.” (pp. 259-260).

“We can say, then, that every law that pertains to man as man is a Christian law, albeit indirectly, when it belongs to a body of law that is Christian as to the whole. This is precisely why I’ve used the word totality in my definition of Christian nationalism; it allows us to say that all national actions—whether directed by custom or law—are Christian customs and laws, even if in themselves they are not distinctly Christian or religious and are merely human and mundane.” (p. 261). To this point, I think that Wolfe is just a Christo-authoritarian conformist. His view of “natural” law is purely subjected to his perception and worldview. He argues his reasons are based on a prelapsarian “natural law,” but his entire reasoning of what prelapsarian natural law comes from his biased logic and hypotheticals. He’s a conformist because he so quickly bends logic to fit his narrative. He is simply ascribing something as “Christian” just by stating it. He even admits this, saying that even if the law is not Christian, or even religious, it does not matter so long as he says it is so.

Ending this chapter, Wolfe gives a prelude to the next. For Wolfe, the one conducting and enforcing these “Christian” laws would be a civil magistrate, or as Wolfe likes, a “Christian prince.” “The civil magistrate, or what I’ll call the ‘Christian prince,’ mediates the people’s national will for their good, providing them the necessary and specific civil actions for that end. 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. Civil law is the life of the commonwealth in relation to its activities and operations, but 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.” (p. 276). The language here is interesting. Using the terms, “mediates the people’s national will,” “head of the people,” “the one to whom they look to see greatness,” “best of men,” “is their spirit,” “heart and spirit of the people.” It is all very idolized. A single man who is to be the idol of the nation, what could go wrong?

Chapter VII: The Christian Prince.

“The prince is the first of his people—one whom the people can look upon as father or protectorate of the country.” (p. 279). This is odd behavior. Insisting that a person be the “first” of his people—as if a singular person can be the ideal Christian American. Then also insist that we should feel comfortable looking at this person as a father for us. Wolfe says he’s not calling for a monarchy or an autocracy, yet his words and ideas seem to say otherwise. If calling for a single leader who is viewed as the perfect countryman, who is given the reigns of the nation, who is viewed as the spirit, the father, the heart of the nation isn’t authoritarianism, then I’m not sure what would be. “The prince is the one through whom the people act for their own good.” (p. 280). Again, if Wolfe isn’t desiring to have an autocracy, then why is he imagining one? If you’re desiring Christian nationalism, why does the magistrate, or the Christian prince, become the idol and the pride of the nation? Why isn’t Christ the one you try to convey as being the spirit, the father, the heart of the nation? Perhaps Wolfe simply just overlooks Christ, or perhaps it's a mask. I’m confident it’s a mask. The Christianity that Wolfe speaks of is nothing more than a modifier to his ultimate end.

“[The Christian prince] is not a steward or a simple administrator, as if he simply promulgates a divinely prescribed civil code. Rather, he makes public judgments in application of God’s natural law, effectively creating law (though derivative of natural law), and he has the power to bring about what he commands. Thus, the prince holds the most excellent office, exceeding even that of the church minister, for it is most like God. The prince, unlike the church minister, is a mediator—‘a vicar of God’—in outward, civil affairs.” (p. 286).

 “For this reason, the prince is called a ‘god’ in Scripture (Ps. 82:6). He has, as Calvin said, a ‘sacred character and title.’ In a sense, we see God in the magistrate.” (p. 287). This is generally a poor reading of Scripture. Psalms 82:6 reads in whole, “I said, ‘You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High.”. This is to be understood as God speaking to the divinely chosen judges of Israel, not simply just a single magistrate. Psalms 82 may not also be the boast that Wolfe assumes. In this Psalm, God is judging the “gods” because they are wicked and pursuing injustice; “How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked?” (Ps. 82:2). The prince is not called a “god” in Scripture and using Psalms 82 to conclude that is an affront to Scripture. To continue with this verse though, it’s also a good reminder to know that this means that the “gods” that God is referring to are later called the “sons of God”. This same title goes into the New Testament and is gained by all believers through adoption when we come to Christ (Matt.5:9, Luke 6:35). Therefore, the “Christian prince” is not the sole carrier of this title. Everyone who has a saving faith in Christ shares the title as sons, and daughters, of God. This is simply another attempt for Wolfe to deify a person, to raise them to a higher status than just a “normal” Christian. Remember, hierarchy and aristocracy are inherent systems built into Wolfe’s version of Christian nationalism.

“Having the highest office on earth, the good prince resembles God to the people. Indeed, he is the closest image of God on earth.” (p. 287). First, I think Wolfe is trying to create an office that is already fulfilled by Christ. Jesus is our Christian prince because he is the prince of princes. This is, again, a clear idolization of a person. Wolfe, who claims to be protestant, seems to forget one of the most important ideas of protestant tradition, that being the equality of all believers. This means, and Scripture supports this, that all believers are equal under Christ. We all remember God and Christ to the world by our faith and our actions. But Wolfe takes this a step further by insisting that the prince is the “closest image of God on earth.” I find this statement troubling. How is the prince the closest image of God on earth when this person is inherently sinful and imperfect? The closest image of God that we have gotten on earth would be Christ. Even then, every Christian is the closest image of God on earth because we all share the same Spirit of God. Placing this amount of deification onto a singular person without any biblical support or theological reasoning is remarkably unwise. According to Wolfe, the system would be God, Christ, the Christian prince, the Holy Spirit, and believers. I surmise that the Spirit comes after the prince simply because, for Wolfe, the prince seems to have more duty on the earth than the Spirit does. For Wolfe, it’s the prince that mediates the divine rule; it’s the prince that brings people near to God; it’s the prince that becomes the nation’s god. “Through [the Christian prince], as the mediator of divine rule, the prince brings God near to the people. The prince is a sort of national god, not in the sense of being divine himself, or in materially transcending common humanity, or as an object of prayer or spiritual worship, or as a means if salvific grace, but as a mediator of divine rule for this nation and as one with divinely granted power to direct them in their national completeness.” (pp. 287-288). I’ll continue to say this, but this is an idolization of a man and of an office. Wolfe is actively calling for the Christian prince to be viewed as a national god. Tell me how this is not idolization?

I want to again compare what Wolfe says against Scripture when he says that the prince mediator of divine rule and mediator of God’s will. “For there is one God and one mediator between God and humanity, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5). The conversation of adding a mediator between God and man ends there. The prince is not a mediator between God and humanity and to say otherwise, as Wolfe does, is simply ignorant to Scripture and ignorant to Christian tradition.

“The prince promotes national self-love and a manly, moral liberty. He recognizes national sins but swiftly resolves them, leaving no license for exploitation or room for lingering self-doubt and the lack of national confidence.” (p. 288). I want to ask how this prince can resolve sins? Maybe I’m being overly analytical with semantics, but no one can “resolve” another’s sin. What we can do is recognize someone’s sin and make them aware of their sin. But they are responsible for their repentance, and only Christ can resolve that sin. I cannot resolve the sin of my brother or my friend. A pastor cannot resolve the sin of a congregant. The president cannot resolve the sin of a taxpayer. A Christian prince cannot resolve the sin of a subject.  Wolfe should have said “recognizes” rather than “resolves.” To resolve something is to find a solution, to heal, or to set right. Trying to claim a person can heal or set right someone’s sin is clearly an error.

“Thus, one looks more to the prince for his good than even church ministers. Though pastors are essential, of course, the prince establishes the conditions for peaceful and quiet life in all godliness.” (p. 289). This is a breakdown of ecclesial duty and tradition. Again, there is no biblical support for Wolfe’s position. The minister should be viewed as higher in importance than this so-called prince purely because the church ministers are the ones feeding the flock the Word of God. Civil law and good works mandated by civil government, or a magistrate do not feed the church. Living under Christian laws does not bring one closer to eternal life or closer to God. The Word does this, and being in community with your local church enables this. The prince cannot minister to everyone simply because he is out of context. Even though Wolfe wants to build a singular society, the reality of this is impossible. Even if you only have a nation of white people of Western European descent, with conservative politics, and who believe in patriarchy, that nation will still vary from community to community. That is human instinct. Therefore, how can a single prince minister to everyone in the ways they need to be ministered to? This is not doable. It’s also not biblical. The church and the duty to minister has always been placed on the local church and the local congregation; it’s never been the duty of the government or of a prince to minister to all. The proof is throughout the Epistles.

Wolfe takes a brief reprieve from his desire for a Christian prince to attack society. “Our age suffers from a dearth of great men. This is largely because acquiring power and influence requires one to debase himself with egalitarian appeal. We live under a de facto gynocracy where masculinity is pathologized in the name of ‘fairness’ and ‘equity’.” (p. 290). If you have to silence half of a population to be a “great man”, you’re objectively not a great man. Wolfe seems intimidated by the fact that women have earned positions of authority and power, and for him, this is threatening. This is simply pathetic. But rather than trying to understand this, he simply attacks men and debases women. Very “Christian” of him. “To achieve acceptance or relevance today, men must become female-adjacent; that is, to adjust to toxic-feminine conditions of empowerment: sameness, credentialism, risk-aversion, victimology, and passive-aggression.” (p. 290). Of course, Wolfe provides no source to back up his diagnosis of society. His claims sound more like a tantrum than anything else. It’s all simply false because there is still a great deal of “great men.” I’m assuming that Wolfe is projecting some self-loathing here and trying to understand that the only reason that he feels that he is not being accepted by society en masse is because he is not one of these “female-adjacent” men. No, not Wolfe. Of course, a natural conclusion to what is harming men is therapy and self-care. “Therapy and self-care are praised as an achievement; struggle and self-willed action are deemed toxic.” (p. 290). Again, I don’t understand how he came to this conclusion. Therapy does not suspend self-will, and neither does self-care. One should take care of themselves, both physically and mentally. I’d say it’s far more masculine that a man is aware of his mental strength and weaknesses, and that he can admit doubts and worries and seek therapy to maintain or better his mental health. Same as self-care. A man is still masculine when getting a pedicure, or letting himself enjoy a retreat, or giving himself time to disconnect from his duties to recover. These things are not bad. They are objectively good things.⁷ But Wolfe is a social warrior, and a social warrior cannot be rational, and he cannot be seen admiring anything that contradicts his faulty view of reality.

After this brief attack on men and women, Wolfe returns to his prince. “Punishing blasphemy would certainly solidify a culture of pious speech. He can also use his personality—as the first man of the people, an image of their ideal—to persuade, admonish, and encourage righteousness and piety. In this way, he acts as a pious father to the people, wielding a non-spiritual and non-coercive power of admonishment and exhortation. His personal examples of piety and faith can shape that of his people. He can touch the heart—as a father touches the hearts of his children.” (p. 293). I want to, again, bring the wording Wolfe uses to attention because he very much calls for a national idol. When he says the prince is “an image of their ideal,” this is very literally the concept of an idol. How Wolfe does not recognize his double speech is beyond me. Same as how everyone who has read his book and finds it to be worth something good. There is a great irony in Christian nationalists. They are very loudly against any type of idolization. They rage at Catholicism, they rage at social causes that use flags, and they rage at everything. Yet, here we see how the desire for a Christian prince is very literally being defined as being a national idol. Again, this shows the incredible ways that CN will conform to fit its agenda. Truth matters very little, and objectivity seems to be a good idea but isn’t practiced. The language Wolfe uses by calling this prince the “father to the people” is also incredibly alarming and it’s antithetical to democratic ideas. For Wolfe, there are no limits to this Christian prince. Even though he tries his best to say that his prince has no spiritual powers, he contradicts himself in every other sentence. He cannot wield spiritual power, but “he can touch the heart” of the nation’s people.

“[The Christian prince’s] military or militia, which defends a Christian people and their church, can be designated ‘soldiers of Christ.’ Many other examples could be given. The point is that the Christian prince should exercise his power to secure and supplement Christian civil and material culture and do everything in this power to make his people’s culture, as a whole, Christian.” (p. 297). Wolfe has a small view of Christ, to speak bluntly. The Spirit and Christ seem to have very little power in Wolfe’s Christian nation. The Christian prince seems to be the one that does the work of the Spirit, the prince seems to be the one that does the mediation of Christ. The prince seems to be the one that protects God’s people, rather than God. Furthermore, Wolfe seems to have a small view of all of the Trinity if he thinks God needs an army to protect the Church. He also seems to be confused that this world is not ours and that you cannot have faith through conquest. Killing people in the name of Christ is not Christian. Using a military to protect a material culture is not Christian. A militia will also never make a culture Christian; only Christians in that culture can bring Christ to that culture. Culture is not Christian via power and people are not made Christian via culture.

Now recalling what will happen before we all get to heaven, Wolfe says, “On that day, the Christian prince, tossing his crown before Christ, will yield to Christ what has always been his, and he will join his people as a spiritual co-equal in Christ.” (pp. 298-299). Only now, getting to heaven, will this prince become spiritually equal to all of us “normal” Christians. Never has Wolfe justified his spiritual hierarchy for this Christian prince, presumably because there is none. But where Wolfe has failed, I will correct. For Wolfe, his idea of the prince being somehow spiritually superior to the common folk who believe in Christ, is an unbiblical concept. “The Spirit himself testifies together with our spirit that we are God’s children, and if children, also heirs—heirs of God and coheirs with Christ—if indeed we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him.’’ (Romans 8:16-17). All believers, of all ages, all ethnicities, all nationalities, all social/economic/political statuses, are all equal by Christ. There is no hierarchy system of those more united to Christ via civil power. To create a concept that a Christian prince is more equal to Christ than common Christians is simply to create an unbiblical concept.

For Wolfe to give such power to this Christian prince, he has to degrade the power that Christ has in the physical world. For Wolfe, the Christian prince bears the physical power to lead and guide the people into heavenly life. As he has said, it is the magistrate and the end goal of Christian nationalism to prepare the people for eternal life in heaven. For this to be justified, Wolfe has to belittle the power of the spiritual in the physical world. He has to be able to say that Christ lacks influence in the physical, therefore the physical must be reigned by the prince. “Although Christ as God does indeed reign over the nations, Christ’s spiritual reign does not extend directly into matters suitable to civil power. Thus, his heavenly kingdom, though manifests on earth, is not an earthly kingdom. Indeed, it cannot be an earthly kingdom, because spiritual power is insufficient to order outward life. Spiritual power is neither intended nor able to directly order this life; it orders our souls for the next life.” (p. 306). If Christ lacks power to affect our outward life as Christians, that’s likely because someone isn’t saved and is thus lacking the Holy Spirit. The Spirit very much has a physical presence that does affect our outward life and faith. Galatians 5:22-25 states the very fruits of the Spirit that we will produce and be known by. If these are not physical manifestations, then how is it that we could be known by them? It is through Christ alone that we are changed by spiritual power to change how we live. It’s hard to truly argue against this claim by Wolfe because to suggest that Christ’s reign is not sufficient for outward life is an incredible error and antithetical to the reformed tradition that he claims he speaks from. If you have to reduce the spiritual power of Christ to fit your narrative, then you’re walking into heresy. It’s very simple. You cannot say that Christ, God incarnate, lacks spiritual power to change how we live on earth. It is by the Spirit that we walk, and only by the Spirit. The civil government, no matter how pious, will never replace the power of Christ or the work of the Holy Spirit. Again, where is Wolfe’s church? Where is his pastor to correct him? Where are the people holding him accountable for mocking the power of Christ?

“The prince is an image of Christ.” (p. 309). Again, more language of idolatry. Why does Wolfe feel so inclined to make the prince out to be an image of Christ when we already have Christ to be his image? It’s every Christian who is the image of Christ. Once more, Wolfe is trying his best to institute a hierarchy that does not exist in Scripture simply for the sake of power. “To be more precise, the prince images Christ not as Christ is mediator of salvific grace (not as the God-man) but as Christ is the Son of God.” (p. 309). This seems to be a word salad. Is he saying that the prince doesn’t resemble Christ as the Messiah, but only as the Son of God? Is he saying that the prince, then, is to be viewed as the Son of God? If you retract the portion of the sentence that Wolfe dismisses, it will read as, “To be more precise, the prince images Christ…as the Son of God,” Again, how is this reasoned by Wolfe? By what Scripture is he standing on to make this claim? Yet again, Wolfe is still arguing his case that Christ does not have the power to influence civil life. “Christ as mediator, as he relates to his mediatorial office, lacks civil power. Thus, the prince as a civil leader, having only civil power, cannot be directly subordinate to Christ as mediator. Put differently, if the Christian prince is over the people as one under Christ as mediator, then the civil magistrate would have a spiritual power. However, since he doesn’t have this sort of power but rather has only a power of this world, he is not under Christ as mediator.” (pp. 310-311). To me, this sounds as if Wolfe is trying to establish the Christian prince as a fourth member of the Trinity. For him, the Christian prince lacks the spiritual power that Christ has, but he carries the civil (physical) power that Christ lacks. Because of this, he isn’t subordinate to Christ? For Wolfe, because the prince fulfills power that Christ lacks, and Christ fulfills power that the prince lacks, they are somewhat equal in power? Why else would he conclude that the prince is not subordinate to Christ if he truly believed that Christ was superior to the prince?

For Wolfe, this prince also has unchecked power. Even if the prince is abusing his power, even abusing Scripture, there is nothing that can be done to remove him from his power. “Being ministers of a spiritual kingdom, pastors cannot depose the prince (i.e., strip him of formal civil authority), nor can ministers absolve the people of their oath to the prince, nor as ministers can they lead or command a revolt against him, even if the prince errs in his judgement concerning morals and ecclesiastical things.” (p. 314). This is Christian fascism—or also Christo-authoritarianism. A power with unchecked power, with no accountability, and with no consequence. The Christian prince, even if he commits heresy and error, cannot be removed. Wolfe is trying to limit the power of the church ministers, possibly because he is afraid of his error. If you remove power from the people who know the Word of God, who have the theological training and insight, you can abuse Scripture without any repercussion. In a sort, Wolfe is calling for an ecclesial coup d`état. Instead of seizing the power of the civil government, he wants to use the civil government to seize the power of the Church.

The conclusion of this chapter carries with it a great irony. Wolfe ends with a great commission for the Christian nationalists. “[W]e should pray that God would raise up such a leader from among us: one who would suppress the enemies of God and elevate his people; recover a worshipping people; restore masculine prominence in the land and a spirit for dominion; affirm and conserve his people and place, not permitting their dissolution or capture; and inspire a love of one’s Christian country. In a word, pray that God would bring about, through a Christian prince, a great renewal.” (p. 323). This is desperate. It’s desperate to beg for masculinity and dominion to return to a country that is still remarkably patriarchal. It’s also desperate to have a prayer that is so nonsensical to Christian tradition. Rather than seeking the universality of the gospel, Wolfe wants to be isolated. Instead of the Great Commission that says to go out and make disciples of all nations, Wolfe’s plea is for God to give his country one great disciple to subject an entire nation of lesser disciples. I’ll end with Psalm 146:3-7: “Do not trust in princes, or in human beings, who cannot save. Their life’s breath departs, they return to the ground. On that day their plans die. How blessed is the one who helper is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the Lord his God, the one who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, who remains forever faithful, vindicates the oppressed, and gives food to the hungry. The Lord releases the imprisoned.”

Chapter VIII: The Right to Revolt:

“The dire situation of Christianity in the West calls for action. But what kind of action?” (p. 325). First, what dire situation is the Church facing in the West? Wolfe doesn’t seem to mention it, likely because all of his fears are fabricated and selfish. And if Wolfe is having to ask what action the Christian must take, I’m afraid he is severely illiterate with Scripture. The Bible simply tells us we shouldn’t worry about the future of tomorrow (Matt. 6:25-34), and this world has always been in the process of destruction and is only a temporary home (2 Cor. 5:1).

For Wolfe, simply living in a world that has always been flawed seems to be enough of a reason to pout. It’s not news that there is evil, that there’s pain and death, murder and harm, wickedness and brokenness. This is all expected, it’s been this way for tens of thousands of years of human history. But no, Wolfe won’t accept this. For Wolfe, the world being imperfect is enough to ignite a revolution. “We have settled into a posture of passive defense, bunkered behind the artificial walls of churches and the porous borders separating the family from society. A hostile and secularist ruling class roams free, and few Christians are willing to take the struggle to a higher level.” (p. 326). I am unsure of what Wolfe is talking about with this claim. This fact is nothing new. It’s not a modern problem to face differing views in culture. And what reasoning does he have to claim that few Christians are willing to take the struggle to a higher level? What is this “higher level?” This is, again, another place where I’ll suggest that Wolfe and anyone who agrees with him should go outside and see how churches are ministering to the culture. There are many Christians who are actively living within these cultures and actively doing good. There are many, many Christians who have taken up this “higher level” to counter any wrongdoing in a culture. But Wolfe does not care about the ministering within these societies. Wolfe wants to destroy these societies, not minister to them. He wants to create a Christian nationalist utopia. Wolfe does not want to counter any cultural movement through missions and service, rather he wants to defeat these cultures in a very literal culture war of conquest. “But we do not have to live like this. And no matter how insistent our evangelical leaders are to the contrary, the Christian religion does not suppress or ‘critique’ that fighting human spirit calling Christians to ‘hazard the loss of limb for their religion, magistrate, wives, children, and all their possessions,’ as Bullinger said.” (p. 326). What Wolfe does is he supports his case by quoting people who affirm his stance. This is how he avoids biblical support. He finds support from previous centuries theologians, uses short quotes from their books that align with his point, and then calls that enough. This, of course, is bad theology. Of course, Wolfe tries to distance himself from these critiques by claiming he isn’t a theologian and that he isn’t creating a case for Christian nationalism by theology. Yet, he is doing exactly that each time he attaches the name “Christian” to any of his theories. It’s also lazy on Wolfe’s behalf. He is not doing any real scholarship. He is not arguing his case for anything. He is simply just using quotes that support his already preconceived ideas. If he wants to build a true case for Christian nationalism, use the Bible. Justify your terms with Scripture. But he won’t because he can’t. Bullinger might allow him to justify Christians risking their lives for their magistrate and their possessions, but the Bible won’t. Where Bullinger is originally quoting 1 John about giving our lives for our brethren just as Christ gave his life for us, Wolfe is assuming this justifies holy war. Rather, it’s about the selfless love that Christ showed to us, and that we should now show to our brothers and sisters. It has nothing to do with dying for the sake of a Christian nation. But, like I’ll keep saying, Wolfe has an agenda, and he will conform any term to fit his agenda. “Here I will justify violent revolution.” (p. 326).

Wolfe begins this justification with propaganda. “A Christian people share particular norms, customs, blood, etc.,” (p. 328). If you can isolate people, make them believe that they are kin, make them believe that their particular way of life is divine and set apart from another nation, if you can convince them that their customs are righteous and holy, you can convince them that these things are worth dying for through revolution. This is also where Wolfe’s false prelapsarian theory comes in full. Again, his theory is that pre-fallen man would be held accountable to a civil government. That the civil government would exist to lead pre-fallen man into goodness, protection, violence if necessary, and purpose. The civil government was, according to Wolfe, created by God before the fall and is thus inherent to natural law. Therefore, civil power and civil government are inherently meant to be controlled by God’s people (American Christians). “As we’ve seen, civil power is natural to man, not in root (for God is the root of civil power), but as something necessary for living well according to man’s social nature.” (p. 329). “God’s law is thereby mediated through the judgement and promulgation of appointed human magistrates, effectively making these judgements ordinances of God. For this reason alone, they bind the conscience: they are derivative of God and hence (mediately speaking) God’s judgements. When a legitimate ruler uses civil power to command what is just and the people disobey this command, they are disobeying God himself, not only because God requires obedience to civil rulers, but also, and more importantly, because the law itself, though human, is an ordinance of God.” (p. 329).

For Wolfe, the power that is inflicted by his form of government is divine because he believes that civil government is a nature of God since it was “prelapsarian.” Again, this is a fallacy. There is no reason to believe that a civil government or magistrate was a part of the natural order of creation before to the fall of man. The entirety of Wolfe’s case rests upon a fairytale. Yet, by this fairytale, he is justifying violence. He is also explicitly giving man the power of God. Suggesting that if we disobey his Christian nationalist law, we are disobeying God since the laws created by the CN are somehow God’s law. This is how fascists enact laws. They make it that the law just isn’t a social contract, but also an eternal contract. You won’t just risk a fine or jail time by breaking a law, no, you’ll risk eternal damnation.

Now we enter into Wolfe’s justifications for violent revolution. “The nation as a nation is not an ad hoc collection of individuals but an entity in itself, a body politic… The nation as such—its national life being a gift of God—is responsible to God for its self-preservation.” (p. 337). This is an abuse of 1 John 3:16. By Wolfe animating a nation, and then sanctifying the nation by insisting it has the gift of God within it, allows him to also say that, just as Christians may die for their brothers and sisters, they now have the responsibility to die for their country since the Christian nation is a Christian entity.

“Since national self-preservation is a command of God and since the injustice of tyrants harms the nation, violent resistance is morally permissible, for God sufficiently augmented earthly powers to shore up earthly good in response to the fall (as I argued in chapter 2), and violence is necessary at times to eliminate tyranny and preserve the nation.” (p. 337). Wolfe claims that national self-preservation is a command of God but does not provide Scripture. This should alarm us. To claim something as a command from God and not provide a source is inserting words into God’s mouth that God did not say. Lying about God is sinful. It could even be blasphemous to fabricate commands that God never spoke and then claim them as “God’s commandment.”

“Violence cannot itself advance Christ’s kingdom. Indeed, this is the very reason why his kingdom is not of this world. But violence can be used to secure it indirectly and outwardly… That is, the church in itself does not increase by any earthly force—for its power is spiritual and operates in the forum of conscience—but earthly forces can preserve and indirectly advance that kingdom by confronting and eliminating outward threats to it.” (p. 339). This is false. The kingdom of God does not advance by killing the very children of God. What a sick and perverse thing to suggest by Wolfe. This is evil, this is demonic, this is antichrist. The Bible tells us how God’s kingdom advances, “So faith comes through what is heard, and what is heard comes through the message about Christ.” (Romans 10:17). Also, the Great Commission gives us our marching orders to advance the kingdom. It is not by conquest, it’s not by eliminating threats, and it’s not through self-preservation. Rather, it’s through sharing the gospel throughout the nations and creating disciples. This is not hard to understand. Wolfe has no excuse to be this stupid regarding basic Biblical facts. I’m not meaning to insult him; I’m saying this earnestly. The stupidity of this is incredible simply because the Bible is in front of him. It’s also evil to justify killing people out of spite of them not sharing your religion. This is not the way of Christ and Wolfe needs to repent. Again, I am begging for Wolfe’s pastor and church to do something because this is abhorrent.

“The decline of religion in the West is remarkably complex, and I will not attempt to do justice to the topic.” (p. 341). Shocking. It’s also as if he can’t prove his defense. If the decline is so “remarkable” and if it’s such a threat, why isn’t he willing to provide the reader with sources to prove his point? Could it be that it’s because he’s basing this entire thing on his won’t speculation and fears rather than objective reality and facts? So, remember, going forward, every one of Wolfe’s claims is not credible. He refuses to provide us with any source material to justify his arguments and claims. This type of writing would fail any basic undergraduate class, by the way. Arguing for something without providing source material to justify your argument would get you a failing mark even in high school. I’m saying this to remind everyone that this entire book is not a scholarly book that people like Doug Wilson say it is. It’s a book, sure, but it’s far from being a scholastic work, or even a proper argumentative book. Therefore, he isn’t living up to his title thesis because he fails at providing his case. To prove a case, you’ve got to have sources and compelling evidence. Wolfe only has more theories and even more opinions.

Wolfe tries to inflict fear into the reader, which is smart for what he is attempting to do. Fear is a great motivator to a cause if you’re lacking justifications for the cause. Fear makes people act irrationally. And if Christian nationalism is anything, it is irrational. “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…When Christians are under a universalizing and totalizing non-Christian regime that wields implicit powers against true religion, how is this not tyranny? Is this not and assault on the people of God, who are forced to live in a public square that wars against Christ’s kingdom and against the nature of true humanity? The natural spheres of life, each with its own God-ordained power, are ordered against God and his people. This certainly is tyranny, though there isn’t, at first glance, a clear tyrant.” (pp. 344-345). Wolfe is simply doing the most to ignite fear. A fear that does not have any reason. Christian, go outside and pray in a public park, and tell me if you get threatened by anyone. Tell me if the police come to harass your church during service. Tell me if you’re unsafe walking down a sidewalk wearing a necklace bearing the cross. We are not under an occupation. We are not treated with hostility by the ruling class. We are not living under a regime that is attacking Christians. Sure, there may be a few bad apples, but this is not unique to Christians or Americans. Wolfe is lying to you in his book simply because he lacks evidence, and he knows this. So, the only way he can cover his lies is to exaggerate false fears. Yet, even despite his entire premise for revolution being made up, he still justifies revolution. “Nevertheless, revolution is morally permissible in these conditions, even when the church is ‘free,’ according to the modern liberal conception of religious freedom.” (p. 345).

“Civil administration was created to serve Adam’s race in a state of integrity, as an outward ordering to God. Today, those who are restored in Christ are the people of God. Thus, civil order and administration is for them.” (p. 346). Do you see how ridiculous this claim is, especially knowing that the entire premise that civil government was created for Adam is hypothetical? In terms of a syllogism, it’s to say that 1) I made up an entire theory; 2) I believe my theory is true; 3) Therefore my theory is objectively true. It’s just as similar to me claiming that God made Adam’s favorite color blue, and since blue was Adam’s favorite color before the fall, then blue is a perfect color, and every Christian’s favorite color should be blue. You cannot create a hypothetical that is purely speculative and unprovable, and then use that hypothetical to create an entire system that you claim as eternally true and divinely ordained.

“The Christian’s posture towards earth ought to be that it is ours, not theirs, for we are co-heirs in Christ.” (p. 347). I’ve previously mentioned John 17:16, but I’ll also mention 1 John 2:15 to refute Wolfe. “Do no love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” It seems like Wolfe loves the world and the nation.

Chapter IX: Liberty of Conscience.

Wolfe begins this chapter by attempting to distinguish between inner and external religion. Of course, he remains consistent in the false understanding that religion is inherently internal and that it does not produce external acts. Only external acts, such as professions and vocal or written worship show external faith. Again, I’m not sure Wolfe understands the internal workings of the Holy Spirit and how that internal working of the spirit provides very real and very public fruits. But Wolfe is not a theologian so perhaps it’s silly of me to assume Wolfe understands something so complex and theologically niche as the fruits of the Spirit. 

As for Wolfe’s question of the pesky liberty of conscience, he concludes that since part of religious belief is at least external, the Christian magistrate has the power to rule over the external conscience. “The question whether a Christian magistrate, having civil rule over a civil society of Christians, may punish (with civil power) false teachers, heretics, blasphemers, and idolaters for their external expression of such things in order to prevent (1) any injury to the souls of the people of God, (2) the subversion of Christian government, Christian culture, or spiritual discipline, or (3) civil disruption or unrest. (p. 359). Of course, we can assume that Wolfe answers his question in the affirmative. “Modern religious liberty advocates deny this and I affirm it.” (p. 359).

Remember that this all depends on Wolfe’s version of civil government and what he, and his cronies, deem as lawful and unlawful. Given how Wolfe’s theology is objectively poor, and his biblical literacy is lacking, to say the least, I’m not confident that he has the insight to deem something as heresy or orthodoxy. “Affirming this question requires me to demonstrate both that civil rulers can in principle punish such people and that it is prudent to so, at the least in some circumstances.” (p. 359).

One of the greatest concerns about Christian nationalism is the laws that it will set. Christian nationalism, by design, is persecutory because it actively seeks to punish anyone and everyone who does not abide by their very specific views of theology and ecclesiology. This is noted throughout history in many cases. Through much of the Middle Ages, it was Christian kingdoms persecuting, arresting, and killing other Christians simply over mostly benign interferences. Galileo was persecuted and accused of heresy by a Christian empire simply for believing (correctly) in heliocentrism. William Tyndale was burned alive at the stake by a Christian king after being charged with heresy for translating the Bible into English. Wolfe excuses Christian nationalism in various places in this book by stating that Christian nationalism represents the true religion of Christianity. This is a lazy argument, and it’s the same excuse every Christian ruler and empire has used to justify their evils. If you can convivence yourself that your abuse is justified by “truth,” you can excuse yourself of anything.

Wolfe’s best answer to “saving the faith” is simply by eliminating everything that makes him uncomfortable. “Even those who are eternally secure—those ‘kept by the power of God’ (1 Pet. 1:5)—can be diverted from the path of righteousness. Christian parents regularly act to keep their children from such people, ordering the household into an exclusively Christian space. Within the extent of their powers and vigilance, they eliminate anti-Christian influences so that children are raised in the fear of the Lord. Civil authorities, having civil power over civil space, can and ought to do likewise.” (p. 362). This is another lazy excuse for abusive power. Simply removing any influence that might cause someone to sin will not keep that person from ever sinning. Even if you isolate a child in a Christian home, where they are home-schooled for 18 years, where they only read Christian literature and listen to Christian music, where they’re surrounded only by other Christians, this doesn’t mean that this child will never live at odds with their Christian upbringing. Simply removing external influences will not ensure piety. I’d even argue the opposite. I believe it’s healthier for someone’s faith and life to be in the world. This is something the bible affirms. The Bible never tells us to remove ourselves from the world, only not to become one with the world. This is what the Holy Spirit is for. The Spirit convicts us, draws us near to God, ensures our faith, secures our faith, sanctifies us, and protects our souls. Simply, being told to fear the Lord does not ensure that the fear of the Lord will remain in the person. Indoctrination does not propagate faith.

“And presumably, the Christian magistrate (though not a theologian) would be no regular Christian but educated. He is, therefore, in a good and confident position to decide between disputes as to fundamentals. Thus, a godly civil magistrate will have competence to decide on what pertains to mere Christian orthodoxy.” (p. 377). I would never advocate for Christian nationalism simply because I believe it to be both unbiblical, and inherently wrong, but let’s entertain the idea of it. If I were to want CN, I would want this Christian magistrate to be a theologian in the best possible ways. If there is going to be someone ruling a nation and creating laws based on theology, this person should be theologically trained. Part of being a theologian is being aware and educated on heresies. If a Christian magistrate can persecute people due to heresy, should this person not have an incredible insight into what heresy truly is? Would you want a lawyer who did not go to law school? Or a doctor who went to medical school? Sure, they both may be well-educated, but if they are not well-educated in their specific fields, you would be slow to trust their judgment.

Wolfe soon begins to offer that there are two ways that America can go. Because, of course, ultimatums are a lazy tactic to argue when you know you have nothing else of reason to argue from. “Experience over the last decade has made evident that there are two options: Christian nationalism or pagan nationalism. The totality of national action will be either Christian, and thus ordered to the complete good, or pagan—ordered to the celebration of degeneracy, child sacrifice (e.g., abortion), mental illness, and idolatry.” (p. 381). Of course, this claim is nonsense. Despite Wolfe’s fears, we do not live in a pagan nation. In fact, much of American social custom is still highly influenced by Christianity. Every President is sworn in with a Christian Bible; “In God We Trust” is inscribed on our currency and almost every federal building; The President also exhorts God’s blessings on the country after every speech; we still almost expect every President to be a Christian in some form. Wolfe is simply insisting that there is a boogeyman. And as every rational adult knows, the boogeyman is not real. This is simply a worldview issue on behalf of Wolfe. He chooses to see the world the way he does. He chooses to believe that we’re under the threat of pagan nationalism. He chooses to believe that people are out to kill and persecute Christians in modern America. All of Wolfe’s fear scenarios are never backed by any source to prove his case. If we are under the threat of paganism, show me evidence of this. If Christian freedoms are being removed by the government, show me the data supporting this. If the American culture is objectively violent and dark, prove yourself by sourcing statistics. Wolfe does none of this because his claims are subjected to his worldview and his prejudices.

“As a result, the left now effectively excludes conservatives from positions of influence and power.” (p. 382). This is objectively false. The Supreme Court has a conservative majority.⁸ Conservatives hold the majority of the House of Representatives.⁹ Donald Trump, even though recently convicted of 34 felony charges, still has the freedom to seek the office of President as the Republican candidate.¹⁰ But Wolfe is not shy about his end goal for Christian nationalism. It’s not about the health and growth of the Church, it’s the aim to assume and control ultimate power. “At this time, power is wielded against the church. Let us wield power in support of the church.” (p. 386). Again, he’s lying. There is no power being used against the church. You have every right to go to church on any given day. You have the freedom to read your Bible anywhere you please. You have the right to practice the sabbath on any day you see fit. There is no power restricting you from your religious practices. Moreso, we do not need power to support the church. The Church is eternal, and it’s supported by Christ. The Church is not going to fall or be overrun or destroyed by anything, no matter how often Wolfe tries to convince you that it is. The only thing we need to support the Church is the Spirit, which we have eternally. The power of Christ is the power that supports the church, not the power of man or civil government.

Wolfe gives us three categories of people who are deserving of political persecution and public scorn: non-Christians,dissenting Christians, and conforming Christians. He defines “non-Christians” as, “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” (p. 392). For this, they are subject to punishment simply for existing. “The purpose is neither to compel faith nor to punish them for their rejection of Christianity but rather to suppress or eliminate any influence they may have upon Christian society. This is not because Christians lack confidence in Christian truth but because the Christian commonwealth sets preparative conditions for the reception of Christian faith and encourages people in that faith.” (p. 392). Wolfe states they would be punished not because of their unbelief, but for their influence created from their unbelief. Isn’t this the same thing just said differently? What Wolfe calls “dissenting Christians” are “true Christians who dissent from the established church. They are not heretical, for their differences are not damnable, nor do they place the soul in serious danger.” (p. 393). Despite these people not being threats, violators, heretics, or evil doers, Wolfe still seeks to condemn them on occasion, despite them being Christians. “Active suppression at times might be appropriate (e.g., early New England), while complete toleration might be more suitable at other times (e.g., early American republic). Even if you are a Christian, you will be at risk of suppression and arrest if you are not Wolfe’s type of Christian. Lastly, for those who are “conforming Christians,” which are Christians who do not live up to the standards of profession that Wolfe desires. If you do not attend your church regularly, you will be at risk of legal punishment. If you fail to worship the ways that CN requires, you may be subject to legal persecution. Any Christian who fails to conform to the national standards of religious expression will be liable for persecution. How Christian of Wolfe.

Chapter X: The Foundation of American Freedom: Anglo-Protestant Experience.

Wolfe begins the final chapter with an interesting statement, “The theoretical argument of this work being complete” (p. 397). This is comical because I’m intrigued by how he finds that his argument is complete when he has failed in almost every way to make a true case for his argument. Again, stating opinions, creating hypotheses, using affirmative snippets of quotes, and avoiding responsibility are not how you complete an argument.

I’ll admit, this chapter is the most uninteresting word-filling chapter of the book. I’m not sure why it’s even in the book other than to fill space and just promote an ideology that is more propaganda than reality. The idea that the American founding was intended to be that of a Protestant Christian nation is objectively and demonstratively false. Protestant theology on morality was influential on the founding of the nation, such as the ideas of human equality and freedom of conscience. Yet, these ideas are not what Wolfe cares about. He wants to argue that Christian nationalism is simply us getting back to what we were supposed to be as a nation.

“In other words, despite the fact that the Constitution lacks Christian language, we cannot forget that the American people in the founding era and early American republic were Protestant Christians, animated by religious concerns, who viewed themselves as a Christian people and relied on Protestant principles and biblical arguments.” (p. 429). Wolfe makes a broad assumption here. Sure, there might have been some influence of Protestantism, but the key founders of the Constitution were mostly theistic rationalists.¹¹ Let’s not forget that the leading philosophy at the birth of America was not Protestantism, rather it was the Enlightenment.¹² This Enlightenment influenced the early American republic. It was Lockean liberty, deism, and rationalism.¹³ Giving all the credit to Protestant Christianity is a historical error. Moreso, it’s propaganda.

Wolfe tries to argue his point by quoting James Pollock (p. 430), the man behind having, “In God We Trust” on our currency. We should understand that Pollock did this out of his personal faith in God, not through a universal pronouncement of the government’s direction. It’s also important to note that James Pollock is not a founding father, nor was he even alive during the conception of the nation. Pollock served in government in the mid-1800’s. Therefore, Wolfe’s using Pollock while arguing for a Christianization of the Constitution is pointless since Pollock had nothing to do with influencing the Constitution.

Wolfe does admit he isn’t interested in returning to the era of the American founding. “I am not advocating a return to late 1790s America; this is not a return-to-the-founding project.” (p. 431). Wolfe wants to return to a time much more barbaric and lawless. Where religious intolerance reigned without checks and balances. “As such, the whole tradition—between the early settlements to the early American republic—is an American, ethno-cultural inheritance that must be reclaimed and serve as an animating element of American Christian nationalism and resource for American renewal.” (p. 431). Wolfe wants us to return to an era when religious zealots were murdering Native Americans¹⁴, Catholics and Episcopalians¹⁵, and arresting and killing people (mostly women) who were falsely accused of witchcraft.¹⁶

Epilogue: Now What?

I’ll say this before going through the epilogue—the epilogue is one of the most disturbing things I have read in recent memory. It is full of bigotry, fear, anger, hatred, and many other things that truly make me question the seriousness of Wolfe’s salvation. I will not conclude that Wolfe is not saved or saved, because that is between him and God. Rather, after reading the epilogue, I am concerned over the intent of his heart. I’ll say that if these are the fruits of Wolfe’s faith, there is great cause for concern. I’ll attempt to share as much of the epilogue as I can. I’m not sure of how much commentary I can provide since much of what Wolfe rages about will seem self-explanatory. Again, this epilogue is gross and hateful.

Wolfe begins by discussing the new America, that is, the post-WWII America. “American conservatism has operated under the assumption that our institutions are still fundamentally ours—still basically for us. But our institutions are not only captured by the left; they have become fundamentally orientated against us. The conservative cannot fathom this. He is an institution man, the sort who lined up against Donald Trump to ‘protect the institutions.’ But what if the meaning of America produced these institutions—its myths, symbols, monuments, and story—is actually against you, not for you? What if the ‘America’ of these institutions casts you as the villain? What then? Are you going to conserve these institutions to your own destruction?” (p. 434). “Thus, we are past the time of ‘conservative principles.’ People conserve what they know and love. How can you love institutions that hate you? Why would you want to ‘conserve’ them? The solution is renewal, not conservation. What we need is the instauration magna, the Great Renewal.” (p. 435). I won’t mince words here; Wolfe is calling for revolution. He is trying to ignite a “Great Renewal” by convincing people that the nation around them hates them, will hate them, and is built to hate them. And that the only way to get rid of this hatred is strictly by force. Wolfe is attempting to create extremists.

“Thus, the narrative of America as embodied in our institutions today is relentlessly hostile to Old America. That means the New America is relentlessly hostile toward you. Every step is overcoming you. Ask yourself, ‘What sort of villain does each event of progress have in common?’ The straight white male. That is the chief out-group of New America, the embodiment of regression and oppression.” (p. 436). See the language? See the way Wolfe is speaking to you? He wants the reader to feel personally attacked, even when they are not. Moreso, he wants the straight white male to feel alone. He wants to make straight white men that they are being replaced and oppressed, even though reason and rationality does not support this. Wolfe wants a race war. He wants to incite the white straight man to fight the “institutions.”

“It is nearly impossible to detach the conservative from his progressivist narrative of US history. In this mind, his country is good because it was founded on good values that became progressively realized over time; and to conservatives’ minds, they were the ones who did it. Yes, the conservatives indeed did it; only they could do it. But what was the reward for your blood, sweat, and tears? To be called ‘racists’ by the Squad, to be denounced as the source of all bad social outcomes, and to be passed over by the incompetent and neurotic. You fought the fascists abroad and then at home only became the fascist of New America.” (p. 437). Wolfe is going on a tantrum here. He thinks only conservatives serve in the military. This is false. He seems to also think military service ought to allow you the freedom to hate. Simply, Wolfe comes off as sounding like someone who is having a psychotic episode and is raging over imaginary boogeymen.

Another warning. The next few quotes from the book are hateful and Wolfe sounds like he truly having an episode of mental anguish. I’m not saying this to make fun of Wolfe, but out of concern for Wolfe. The way he speaks, the tone in which his writing portrays, and the anger and aggression he holds, it is all concerning as a reader, and I truly think Stephen Wolfe ought to seek therapy to control his rage.

Let’s continue. “The impulse to serve is itself commendable, deserving of great praise. But this love of country was exploited, and young men were sent across the world to fight for ‘freedom’ in places that had never heard of John Locke or James Madison—and didn’t care. ‘Make the world safe for democracy,’ they told us. We then see the rainbow flag in Kabul and NGOs advocating for transgender rights and gender studies programs. That’s ‘democracy,’ and we are here to kill and die for it. Get blown up in the name of liberal imperialism; shed blood to open up markets for Netflix and Pornhub; make the world safe for dudes in dresses.” (P. 438). I don’t have much to say. Remember, this book is about Christian nationalism. This is concerning.

“You ‘defended the beliefs of your country.’ He is right in a way: you’ve defended the beliefs of New America—feminism, homosexuality, gender fluidity, secularism, porn, and base entertainment… But the ‘American way of life,’ which the military fights for today, is not to work hard, go to church, call your mother—it is a man in a miniskirt threatening you for not using his preferred pronouns. It is coming home from war to hear that your kid learned in school that he and his family are racists. It is being forced to acknowledge that men can get pregnant. It is saying over and over again ‘diversity is our strength.’ It is listening to a US congresswoman born in a failed foreign country safely denounce your country as evil, to her party’s praise.” (p. 439). Again, this is not based in reality. Wolfe is spewing hate that is clear propaganda, and he has fallen for the propaganda. The military has fought for our right to go to church, and to have the freedom to choose which church and which faith we believe in. Everything Wolfe is talking about is pure propaganda to only further spread his hate.

Wolfe now takes his anger and vitriol to women. “A husband might abuse his wife in a variety of ways. For this reason, women by nature are prone to seek out third parties as interjecting powers to check their husbands. The civil state does this with domestic violence laws and law enforcement, the church with pastoral intervention, and brothers and fathers in less civilly sanctioned ways. These powers equalize the home, providing the weaker party (the woman) some power, usually operating in reserve, over the stronger party (the man). (p. 449). For Wolfe, women should never have the right to equalize their power to that of their husbands. And even doing so to seek help from abuse is wrong since it ruins power dynamics. This is pathetic, it’s wrong, and it’s hellish. “This is why women tend to be more invested in the modern state than men. The state ensures their independence; it is the ultimate third-party. It renders personal dependance on men entirely optional. The state is their father, brother, and husband. The modern state makes possible a woman’s independence and equality in society. The price for is it pathologizing masculinity.” (p. 450). I want to remind us all that this is a book about Christian nationalism. How quickly it has turned into a manifesto of hate and rage.

For Wolfe, women are dependent upon men. Not simply for marital life or creating families, but in every area of life. For Wolfe, women are nothing without men. “Feminine virtues greatly benefit individuals and society; they are indispensable. But they operate for good only when complimented with masculine leadership.” (p. 451).

Again, we are about to enter into another questionable section from Wolfe that is highly suspicious of being a mental episode. This time he shares with us a story from his own POV. “I once saw an effeminate and flamboyant military officer address a formation of soldiers. He was relaying mundane information, but the manner of his delivery (which was light and gay) made the female soldiers giggle, as if they were with their gay friend having casual conversation. The male soldiers were mainly stone-faced, though some responded instinctively to their female soldiers around them. If the formation were exclusively male and they were not constrained by higher administration, the men would find ways to rid themselves of this officer.” (p. 451). Wolfe sounds incredibly insecure, immature, and ridiculous here. What does this have to do with anything? Even more, what does this entire epilogue have to do with his case for Christian nationalism? Why was this included in the finished book and what is its purpose? It has none. It is truly purposeless. It adds nothing to his case, it only ruins the entire thing.

“Christian nationalism should have a strong and austere aesthetic. I was dismayed when I saw the attendees of a recent PCA General Assembly—men in wrinkled, short-sleeved golf shirts, sitting plump in their seats. We have to do better. Pursue your potential. Lift weights, eat right, and lose the dad bod. We don’t all have to become bodybuilders, but we ought to be men of power and endurance. We cannot achieve our goals with such a flabby aesthetic and under the control of modern nutrition. Sneering at this aesthetic version, which I fully expect to happen, is pure cope. Grace does not destroy T-levels; grace does not perfect testosterone into estrogen. If our opponents want to be fat, have low testosterone, and chug vegetable oil, let them. It won’t be us.” (pp. 469-470.) I think this perfectly sums up what Christian nationalism is. It is purely an aesthetic. It is not biblical. It is not Christian. It is not theologically sound. It is not rational or safe. It is simply an aesthetic of manufactured machismo—trying to portray itself as stoic and austere. It is ultimately fragile, which is why Wolfe becomes unbearably triggered by opposing views. Why he can’t bear to see a wrinkled shirt at a meeting. Why he can’t understand why people don’t enjoy his segregationist ideations. The fact that he mocks people for their bodies is antichristian.

Final Remarks.

Stephen Wolfe’s book, The Case for Christian Nationalism, needs to be talked about because it is dangerous. I’m sure that this lengthy review tells that tale. There is very little I feel I can say at the conclusion of this review, given that I feel I have said what is needed throughout. I will say this, we are not at the conclusion of the threat of Christian nationalism.

I fear that this is going to be an issue that we need to confront for many years to come. We are at the beginning of this movement. And though this isn’t a new concept, it does have a new force behind it. There is much hate and passion behind Christian nationalism in its modern form. Many people are attracted to it because it speaks to their prejudice, it allows their hate, and it promises them the power they so desperately long for. There is nothing Christian about Christian nationalism and it is offensive to me and my faith that it tries to proclaim Jesus. Jesus is nowhere within this political theory, and how dare Wolfe and others suggest otherwise.

God is with his people, and his people are in all nations and are of all ethnicities. God does not favor a particular people, he does not desire a divided kingdom, he does not long for Kinism, and he does not need a magistrate to mediate for Christ and his Church. Our prince is Christ, our kingdom is heaven, and our King is already sitting on his throne. Christian nationalism offers the Christian nothing, but it does offer man everything. Therefore, Christians, do not be led into CN simply because it attempts to be Christian. It is not. “Now I truly understand that God doesn’t show favoritism, but in every nation the person who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.” (Acts 10:34).

---

You can follow me on X(Twitter) @JarranSainsbury where I spend most of my time discussing CN and other topics regarding faith, politics, and various other social issues.

1. Tyler, Amanda. “Opinion: Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Words on Christian Nationalism Are a Wake-up Call.” CNN, 27 July 2022, www.cnn.com/2022/07/27/opinions/christian-nationalism-marjorie-taylor-greene-tyler/index.html.

2. Ward, Alexander, and Heidi Przybyla. “Trump Allies Prepare to Infuse “Christian Nationalism” in Second Administration.” Politico.com, Politico, 20 Feb. 2024, www.politico.com/news/2024/02/20/donald-trump-allies-christian-nationalism-00142086. Accessed 14 May 2024.

3. Perry, Samuel, and Andrew L. Whitehead. “The Role of Christian Nationalism on January 6 and After: What National Survey Data Tell Us.” SocArXiv, 23 Mar. 2023. Web.

4. Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Section 125, tr. Walter Kaufmann

5. Monsó, Susana, et al. “Animal Morality: What It Means and Why It Matters.” The Journal of Ethics, vol. 22, no. 3-4, 27 Sept. 2018, pp. 283–310, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-018-9275-3.

6. Bump, P. (2020b, June 7). Over the past 60 years, more spending on police hasn’t necessarily meant less crime. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/07/over-past-60-years-more-spending-police-hasnt-necessarily-meant-less-crime/

7. Narasimhan, M., Logie, C. H., Moody, K., Hopkins, J., Montoya, O., & Hardon, A. (2021). The role of self-care interventions on men's health-seeking behaviours to advance their sexual and reproductive health and rights. Health research policy and systems, 19(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-00655-0

8. Current members. (n.d.). https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx

9. Leadership | House.gov. (n.d.). https://www.house.gov/leadership

10. Sisak, M. R., Peltz, J., Tucker, E., Price, M. L., & Colvin, J. (2024, May 31). Trump hush money verdict: Guilty of all 34 counts | AP News. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/trump-trial-deliberations-jury-testimony-verdict-85558c6d08efb434d05b694364470aa0

11. Edwards, M. (2015, July 4). Was America founded as a Christian nation? CNN.com. Retrieved June 5, 2024, from https://www.cnn.com/2015/07/02/living/america-christian-nation/index.html

12. President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Pluralism Project at Harvard University. (2020). Christianity enlightenment and revolution. https://hwpi.harvard.edu/files/pluralism/files/enlightenment_and_revolution_0.pdf

13. Frazer, G. L. (2014). The religious beliefs of America’s founders: Reason, Revelation, and Revolution. University Press of Kansas.

14. Mullen, M. (2021, May 24). Pequot massacres begin. HISTORY. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/pequot-massacres-begin#

15. Leicester, M. R. P. F. U. O. (2024). Godly Violence in the Puritan Atlantic World, 1636-1676: A Study of Military Providentialism. Boydell Press.

16. Schiff, S. (2015, August 31). Inside the Salem Witch trials. The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/09/07/the-witches-of-salem