The Case for Christian Nationalism

by Stephen Wolfe

It is no surprise that “Christian nationalism” is used in the context of the 2021 riot at the Capitol Building in Washington, DC. Associating the term with a widely condemned event gives the accusation of Christian nationalism tremendous weight in rhetoric.

Opposing those who wanted “the system of public worship [to] be held apart from the general life,” he argued that the whole life of man is essentially religious; and politics, the sphere of just relations between men, especially become religious when conducted in a Christian spirit. Nothing can be more fatal to mankind or to religion itself than to call one set of things or persons religious and another secular, when Christ has redeemed the whole.6

All of life, including public life, ought to be Christian.

Philip Gorski and Samuel Perry recently published The Flag and the Cross: White Christian Nationalism and the Threat to American Democracy. Their definition is a “constellation of beliefs,”10 which is technically not a definition, and the unstated point of the book is certainly to secure the term’s negative connotations by associating it with heretical social views. Since it is largely a work of (activist) sociology, its content is mostly irrelevant to the content of this book. They disregard and dismiss the reasons for Christian nationalist beliefs and instead rely on racial explanations, such as “whiteness,” to account for Christian nationalism.

This is a work of Christian political theory, not sociology. If the social scientists wish to critique my book, they must step out of social science, suspend their belief in social dogma, and enter rational inquiry.

Christian nationalism is a totality of national action, consisting of civil laws and social customs, conducted by a Christian nation as a Christian nation, in order to procure for itself both earthly and heavenly good in Christ. The purpose of this book is to show that Christian nationalism (as defined) is just, the ideal arrangement for Christians, and something worth pursuing with determination and resolve.12

break this down carefully and in detail because the discussion on Christian nationalism today lacks the sort of precision and care that early generations of Reformed writers brought to Christian political thought.

One can hardly expect anything extraordinary in a nation where the ordinary is absent.

Viewed as a whole, the Christian nation acts for itself by a three-step process: (1) It achieves a national will for itself; (2) that will is mediated through authorities that the people institute; and (3) the people act according to the dictates of that mediation.

though magistrates are necessary to direct the will of the people into concrete action.

The specific difference between generic nationalism and Christian nationalism is that, for the latter, Christ is essential to obtaining the complete good.

Academically, my world is that of the early modern period (the 16th through the 18th centuries). What I love about this period is that authors made serious attempts to persuade using rational demonstration, and they were deeply conscious of the systemic nature of truth and the necessity of internal coherence. Unfortunately, the expectation for demonstration and coherence is largely absent in the Christian world today, especially in books and articles on politics.

Our claims of exclusivity are contrary to untethered empathy and gynocratic norms. The rise of Christian nationalism necessitates the fall of gynocracy.

It is no surprise that de-conversion accounts often include pictures of the de-converted smiling in some tranquil nature scene. He dove straight into the calm social pond and became elated at the release of psychological conflict and at society’s affirmation. His mind is now at ease, as he waves the “current thing” flag. Of course, this is not courageous: it is mental weakness and last-man psychology.

Grace does not destroy T-levels; grace does not perfect testosterone into estrogen.

For too long, we have looked to fiery political sermons to satisfy our concerns over the “culture.” We listen and then walk out the door thinking, The secularist culture got it good! and we are satisfied. Meanwhile, the culture continues going to hell. This exaggerates things a bit, but still Christians have treated Sunday as their weekly political meeting. It should be no such thing, and practically speaking, turning it into a political church hinders Christian political movements. We must form civil associations outside the ecclesiastical sphere, and without pastoral leadership.