The Case for Christian Nationalism

by Stephen Wolfe

But since I pull mainly from the 16th and 17th centuries, in which Reformed theology was very Thomistic and catholic,15 many of my theological premises are widely shared among Christians.

The second half of chapter 7 concerns the prince’s relationship to the visible church, which I frame with a Presbyterian view of two-kingdoms theology.

Thus, chapter 9 shows that the religious toleration in the founding era was rooted, not in Enlightenment thought or liberalism, but in good Protestant principles applied in light of Anglo-Protestant experience.

The right to rule creation as vice-regents is derived naturally and necessarily from divinely-granted majesty. And since grace assumes nature (as we see in the next chapter), it does not rescind or abrogate the dominion mandate, and taking dominion well is one result of sanctification.

Man by nature, even when having full command of his faculties, is not only an earth-bound being but a place-bound being. He dwells in a particular place and can move long distances only with great trouble.

We can further conclude that the diversity of nations throughout history is not a product of the fall but of human nature.

Indeed, this is precisely why civil government must be augmented—to shore up its ability to achieve its original role in relation to man.

The world-to-come was always a divine gift, not a work of man. The work of dominion for Adam would not itself immanentize the state of glory, nor would it be sufficient to merit eternal life. The natural end of his work was not eternal life. Rather, by grace, God declared that Adam’s obedience would meet the condition for bestowing blessed life upon him.

Two-kingdoms theology—keeping the spiritual kingdom of Christ and the outward socio-political order separate—follows logically from Reformed theological anthropology and is necessary for theological coherence.

The fall introduced the abuse of social relations and malice towards ethnic difference. Grace corrects this abuse and malice, but it does not introduce new principles of human relations. The instinct to love the familiar more than the foreign is good and remains operative in all spiritual states of man.

The foreigner’s fundamental principle is conformity, to the greatest extent possible; they are not at home but guests in another’s home. Their posture or disposition to the place must be respect, humility, deference, and gratitude. They must have no attitude of “mine” in relation to space except to what is allotted to them. Nor may they subvert or exploit the commonwealth for their own gain. The foreigner should mute his own customary ways. His ways are not necessarily bad, evil, barbarous, or inferior in any way. Indeed, his customs might be superior and more refined than the host country’s. 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.

Becoming or maintaining itself as a Christian nation, in an explicit sense, is an act of national will. An implicit Christian nation is an unfaithful nation, one that lacks the will to explicitly place itself under God, to conceive of itself as a Christian nation, and to will for its Christian good. Thus, the complete Christian nation comes into being synergistically—by the grace of God and the will of man.

Civil power cannot directly bring about spiritual good. No civil magistrate can command or exercise dominion over the conscience. Civil power cannot legislate or coerce people into belief; it can only command outward things—to outwardly do this or not do that.

Their objects of action are things circa sacra—around sacred things. This can include the funding of church construction; ministerial and seminary financial support; the suppression of public blasphemy, heresy, and impious profanation; obligating Sabbath observance; and other things.

Civil government ought to regulate outward things for the complete good of the people. Heavenly good is one part of the people’s complete good. Therefore, civil government ought to regulate outward things for the people’s heavenly good. Since some outward things directly promote man’s heavenly good (e.g., Sabbath observance), civil government ought to direct the people in them.

Though the people of God share the highest good, that does not make any random selection of them mutually suitable for civil fellowship. Thus, it is a categorical error to make unity in Christ the sole basis of civil fellowship. We cannot ground civic brotherhood on spiritual brotherhood. It simply doesn’t work, no matter how much modern sentiment you place on spiritual unity.

Would you exclude a known unbeliever from attending a church service because he might join in congregational singing or perform other elements of the liturgy? No. You would rejoice that he witnessed the service and hears the Gospel. Would you leave your unbelieving child at home, fearing that he might sin grievously in hypocrisy? No. Will you reject evangelism because non-Christians sin when they reject the Gospel? No. The fact that cultural Christianity leads unregenerate people to sin is no reason in itself to repudiate it.

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,23 is a mediator—“a vicar of God”—in outward, civil affairs.24 As Calvin said, civil rulers “represent the person of God, as whose substitutes they in a manner act.”25

A prince may require the elevation of the pulpit above the Lord’s Table in church construction, for example. This follows a natural principle of order, signifying that the dependent element is beneath the thing upon which it depends (viz., the preaching of the Word goes before the administration of the Lord’s Supper).

Since no unjust command is an ordinance of God, no unjust command binds man’s conscience; only ordinances of God bind the conscience. Unjust commands are commands of men, backed by nothing but the power of man, and no power of man can bind the conscience.

It is to our shame that we sheepishly tolerate assaults against our Christian heritage, merely sighing or tweeting performative outrage over public blasphemy, impiety, irreverence, and perversity. We are dead inside, lacking the spirit to drive away the open mockery of God and to claim what is ours in Christ. We are gripped by a slavish devotion to our secularist captors.

Cotton Mather even says that he was willing to permit Baptists to “withdraw when an infant was baptized.”12

New England authorities concluded that the existence of credobaptist churches threatened civil unity. Denying the legitimacy of your fellows’ baptism might undermine the credibility of the ecclesiastical and civil leadership. Baptists churches might also consider themselves purer than the established church, leading to sectarianism and civil discord. New England had learned quite a lot from their disputes with Roger Williams, whose radical views of church purity generated contention in Boston and Salem. For these reasons, laws against preaching credobaptism were justified on grounds of civil unity and peace.