A little favor. Does anyone have resources to recommend related to Christian Nationalism, pro and con? A pastor friend is asking, “Have a helpful article on Christian nationalism? I’m doing some extra reading for the month.” Any help?
I have not read into this topic in detail so I am not recommending any of this, but I’m familiar with some of the proponents and opponents and a few of the talking points so I think this may be a fair representation of the various sides.
PRO
From what I can tell, a lot of the chatter on the pro side seems to swirl around 3 books in particular:
- The Case for Christian Nationalism by Stephen Wolfe (Canon Press, 2022) [Amazon]
- Christian Nationalism: A Biblical Guide for Taking Dominion and Discipling Nations by Andrew Torba & Andrew Isker (independently published, 2022) [Amazon]
- The Boniface Option by Andrew Isker (independently published, 2023) [Amazon]
Doug Wilson/Canon Press/Moscow frequently get mentioned in the debates, pro and con, but no individual work seems to come forward but more just the general vibe. Canon did publish Wolfe’s book. I’m not sure if Wilson’s recent book Mere Christendom: The Case for Bringing Christianity Back into Modern Culture - Leading by Faith to Convert Secularism (Canon Press, 2023) [Amazon] is supposed to posit Doug’s vision of what this concept of “Christian nationalism” should look like but it has that sound to it.
Also, the name Charles Haywood has been mentioned in connection with the movement. He runs a site called The Worthy House.
CON
On the conservative Christian con side, Sovereign Nations (Michael O’Fallon) seems to lead the charge. He has spoken against what he sees as the balkanization being put forth by leaders in the movement. I’ve been told Bill Roach has well-stated opposition. And although he is an atheist and not a Christian (he has done many things in connection with Sovereign Nations which is why I mention him here), James Lindsay offers his own response to the movement (language warning).
On the progressive religious con side, you have things like the Christians Against Christian Nationalism statement. The fact that it is signed by Jim Wallis, Doug Pagitt, Shane Claiborne and Tony Campolo tells you where it is coming from. In a similar vein, the Baptist News Global is opposed. Likewise, Religion News Service.
On the mainstream secular side, it seems there is a new article every week and a new book every month against “Christian nationalism.” Most of it seems to just be against any public conservative Christian activity and I doubt much of it is engaging any of the above works.
A smattering of recent releases in this genre are represented in this picture:
CONCLUSION
If I were to study the movement, I would begin above and work out from there following source references within those works etc.
5 Likes
FWIW, Haywood is himself Eastern Orthodox. Maybe I don’t understand Christian Nationalism™, but my impression is that alone would make him a fellow traveler of the movement at best.
1 Like
If your friend is willing to listen to something, check out the below interview of David VanDrunen (yep, WSCAL R2K guy). I’m currently in the middle of it and find I’m agreeing more than disagreeing with his arguments. They interact with Wolfe’s Christian Nationalism and Wilson’s Mere Christendom.
4 Likes
It’s difficult to recommend one piece on CN, since the topic is complex and challenging. I’ve done some reading on the topic and found Andrew Walker’s writing on the subject fairly helpful, as someone who doesn’t identify as a Christian Nationalist but is fair in his arguments.
I have not found O’Fallon or people like Owen Strachan illuminating, since they seem to struggle to present their case in a way that would convince anyone other than people who already agree with them. That and having far more charity for atheists (like Lindsey) than fellow Christians.
I have strong disagreements with aspects of Wolfe’s project, specifically related to his discussions of ethnicity. But as you’ve worded the question, I do not know if you are wanting articles that focus on Wolfe’s specific interpretation of Christian Nationalism, or more broadly.
Isker and Torba have both taken the ethnic components of Wolfe’s project considerably further than Wolfe himself has publicly, with Isker debating Wilson over how Christians should view Israel and the Jews. From watching the accounts around Isker, there’s a strong current of rising antisemitism in that group that is concerning to say the least. But coming back to your question, since that’s not really about CN, it’s the predilections of the people leading the CN “movement”, if one can call something as diverse and organic as CN a movement.
I’m happy to share receipts on Torba and Isker if you are interested, but for now I’ll just share the links to the debate between Isker and Wilson, and a piece by Andrew Walker.
[edited for clarity and typos]
4 Likes
Brothers,
After all the dust of this and that settles, remember the proposal of an agenda for Christian Nationalism I proposed:
Here are five planks to be published broadly by Christian Nationalist Party members. As the Christian Nationalist Party seeks to establish the reign of God and codification of His law at the center of our nation and states’ governmental authority, let it state the fundamentals of that rule and law established by God at Creation:
First, we call for the renewed criminalization of contraception and birth control. God’s Creation Mandate to man1 is to “be fruitful and multiply,” and this was the basis of the universal condemnation of birth control across Christendom until well into the last century. Christendom’s former criminalization of all artificial forms of pregnancy prevention must be restored.
Second, we call for the repeal of all laws which place man and animal on a level, whether implicitly or explicitly. God’s Creation Mandate is that man alone was created in His Image and likeness, and thus God brought animals to man to be named, commanding him to take dominion, to “rule over” them. Any assessment of environmental impacts must start with the good of man, and proceed from there to other living beings.
Third, we call for the criminalization of sodomy and sodomite marriage. God’s Creation Mandate is that sex is permitted only within heterosexual marriage, and thus this sin is an abomination before God. Jesus reiterated this when He Himself said, “He Who created from the beginning made them male and female.”
Fourth, we call for the removal of the female sex from holding and exercising civil authority over men. God’s Creation Order and Mandate is Adam first, then Eve. Reiterating this Creation Mandate, the Apostolic command was given that woman is not to be allowed to exercise authority over man.
Fifth, we call for the repeal of all no-fault divorce laws. God’s Creation Mandate is that marriage is one-man and one-woman, and life-long. We call for the criminalization of all betrayals of marriage as God established it in the state of perfection, universally binding on man for all time.
Announcing such a simple Biblical platform for the Christian Nationalist Party will make it clear to all men that Christian Nationalists do not seek the political establishment of any church or denomination, but merely the return of man and nations’ obedience to God’s Creation Mandates which He Himself applied to all men in all places across all time.
By definition God’s Creation Mandates are non-sectarian. Commanded by God before the Fall while man was in the Garden of Eden in the state of perfection, they have never been, nor can they ever be, abrogated. Zeal for God’s Creation Mandates will permeate the foundations of our movement governmentally. We seek to establish the Kingdom of God on earth, and therefore will not stop with the establishment of these laws and their authority over just our own United States, but will pursue their establishment and authority across the entire world.
Christian Nationalism is really a misnomer. In fact, our work establishing the Kingdom of God on earth is at its heart transnationalist. God’s Creation Mandates were given prior to God’s Moral Law, and therefore their codification is mandatory to any beginning attempt to reinstate the authority and rule of God over all His Creation.
The radio silence in response tells you everything you need to know. As I see it. Love,
4 Likes
In terms of what we include as being within the scope of Christian Nationalism … what should not be included?
I should add that I wrote that up only to elicit that radio silence I was certain would follow. The fundamental laws given adam and Adam in the state of perfection in the Garden of Eden we refer to as our Father’s “Creation Mandates” are absolutely not any part of the CN platform, but why not? That’s where men should focus their attention if they want to understand this latest political fad.
Once we rid ourselves of any duty to call the lost to obey God’s universal commands of fruitfulness, patriarchy, heterosexuality, filling and ruling the whole earth, and so on, we’re left with neglecting the weightier matters of the law in order to assemble a political coalition. If we claim this work of getting an electorate together around opposing, say, sodomite marriage, calling that coaltion “Christian” is perverse.
In other words, if the nation is not going to be ruled by God’s Creation Mandates, what’s the point? But of course, we’ve all watched these Christian movements before and the point is always to get “our” women and men in power—who are also corrupt. Take a lesson from Oliver Cromwell, our Founding Fathers, and Jerry Falwell. Love,
1 Like
That was a helpful article. I hope many read it and were convicted.
1 Like
Though this isn’t directly about Christian Nationalism, I have found Crawford Gribben’s book to be helpful. The book shows how a distinctly Catholic nation became liberal in a matter of decades. It all started to decline with softening on birth control.
I know Dr. Gribben has also written on Cromwell somewhere. And he’s written on reconstructionism in the Pacific Northwest.
3 Likes
Dear Pastor Tim,
I appreciated your article and from what I know of those of us who would identify as Christian Nationalist, we would not disagree with much written in it. I would not take radio silence as confirmation of anything regarding it. It may be that your criticisms of Christian Nationalists have made most of the people who would have agreed with it tune out. So be careful of confirmation bias.
As far as a research on Christian Nationalism, I think obviously Stephen Wolfe’s book would be on the list. But if you want the position historically, read Messiah the Prince by William Symington. Amazon.com
Everything good from Stephen Wolfe will be found in it. The same goes with whole chunks of James Bannerman’s The Church of Christ. His chapters defending the establishment of a religion are also in tune with what Wolfe’s book says.
Wilson’s Mere Christendom I have not yet read. I know that his position is going to be a little more reconstructionist.
Finally, I did a podcast episode on it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_Yw_sp4Bho
love,
3 Likes
Dear Joseph,
That’s precisely what I’m hoping. I can’t carry all the water for all the errors, but I can warn day and night. And this is my commitment about the current Christian Nationalist fad. Juergen and I address the issues in a podcast we recorded today, and I’m hopeful many will become wiser and avoid this fad because of it.
It’s normal for members of the same presbytery to disagree, and we do on this. Sorry, but disagreements show who has God’s approval, as the Apostle Paul tells us.
With affection and love,
PS: I might add that Bannerman is excellent in most things, but what he and Jonathan Edwards would have written today is unknown. The least we can say is that nothing they wrote comes anywhere near predicting the abysmal moral and spiritual Canaanite paganism of their nations today, and this must be taken into account when we claim them for our camp.
4 Likes
Dear Pastor Tim,
Thanks for your response. While we may not see eye to eye on Christian nationalism, I think our difference is minor. I respect your concern regarding fads. As far as Bannerman and William Symington, I am sure they could not have foreseen how wicked our culture has become but its not because the culture followed their principles. Rather it was the abandonment of the Westminster principles that have led to our decline. I think Christian nationalism is an attempt to go back to principles regarding civil government and Christian thinking that predates our modern pluralist thinking. I don’t think that is a bad thing even if made faddish by some.
Many men today are tired of the weak and insufficient answers given by modern evangelicalism, and they are rediscovering a more robust Christian worldview in the past. If we dismiss their concerns or seem dismissive of what they’re discovering, they will tune out. Yes, some young men may be overzealous or misguided in certain areas, but that’s where discipleship comes in. I believe they can be guided, and I’m optimistic about it—call me a sucker for punishment, if you will.
I strongly recommend Messiah the Prince if you’re willing to engage with it. I imagine you would not find much to disagree with it. It would be a great book for all the parties involved to read.
Love,
Joseph
1 Like
Dear Joseph,
We may be further apart than is yet apparent. The next podcast with Juergen will show whether or not that’s true.
What I want to comment about now, though, is the second sentence above leaving the agent of abandonment undefined when the first sentence identifies it as the “culture.” Assuming it’s the culture who also does the abandonment in the second sentence, I can’t get my head around how blaming the culture is helpful then or now. This is why I keep returning to pastors, elders, and the Church. She is the Mother of the truly Living, the Jerusalem from above, the City of God, and therefore She is the agent of change. Not the culture. The culture restrains evil as God’s sword of justice, but the Church brings man under conviction of sin against God’s law through preaching. Again, the pulpit leads the world. Next to the preacher, the civil magistrate’s sword is relatively impotent. It was the church that changed the Roman Empire—not the emporers.
When we see pastors making the pulpit and church their priority and preaching God’s law and repetance, and not just grace and faith, then we can expect men God has called to the civil authority offices and positions to come under conviction and turn in repentance and faith, both at church and home, and also in their office of authority God has delegated to them
This is where we called by God to be proclaiming shepherds and ruling officers need to focus our work and exercise our faith. Not designing some politiical scheme to get this or that man into his state legislature. Seriously. Love,
1 Like
Dear Joseph, have you seen the many, many young men in the ultra-liberal town of Bloomington who have come through Trinity Reformed Church and are now pastors and elders around the country? Have you noticed any shortage of men and women who have flowed through our former church in Bloomington who are repenting of Evangelicalism? Have you watched our men who actually HAVE civil authority being cowards and lacking faith and zeal in their work?
Come on, dear brother. A lifetime of work is behind me, and while I’m not used to bragging, when a younger man warns me against discouraging people from repenting of Evangelicalism because I reject his emphasis on politics outside the Church, I assume he must have no knowledge of what God has been pleased to do through the good people of Trinity Reformed Church. Hopeful you understand. With love,
PS: It might help to add that I have always very much agreed with Christian men God has called to civil authority holding office, running for office, and confessing Christ in their offices through honoring the Lordship of Jesus Christ over all of life. To call this “Christian Nationalism” is fine if that’s what young guys want, but they’re doing nothing more than many of us have been doing for decades. So welcome to the work, but let’s leave the name out of it since there are already political platforms and parties abusing the name “Christian” in nations all over the word.
1 Like
Dear brother, Dear brother,
Thank you again for your response. I agree with you in several areas—especially the church’s role in preaching repentance and salvation. You’re right to say that the church has often led the world in spiritual renewal, and I do not mean to diminish the work you or the faithful men of Trinity Reformed Church have done. In fact, I respect the fruit of your ministry and the way God has blessed your efforts.
I don’t disagree that it was the church and its leaders who abandoned Westminster principles. Nor do I disagree that as pastors we must be proclaiming the law and gospel. We must call people to repentance. Just as you take offense to what you think is my ignoring your work (I am not), your comments to me could be taken to assume that I am not doing the work of preaching repentance. We do preach to the consciences of the people sitting in our church and in our town. How about we both agree not to take offense at each other in our arguments?
However, our difference lies not in the importance of the church’s work. God has also appointed the state as an instrument of justice and order in this fallen world. Just as the church is to preach the Word, the magistrate is to uphold God’s law in the civil sphere. These are not in opposition to each other but should work in harmony, as they have in key moments in history. This is not an either/or but a both/and.
For instance, while the church shaped the Roman Empire—Emperors like Constantine were used by God to shape the church for good. The emperor was the one whom God used to bring reformation to the church by calling the Nicene Council. God uses civil magistrates to protect Martin Luther and the reformation. The Westminster Assembly itself relied on civil support to accomplish its goals. The collaboration between church and state is part of what shaped Western civilization for the good.
I agree with you that to abandon the work of the church for mere politics is unbiblical, ungodly, and foolish. Christian nationalism, as I see it, is not a political scheme but a call to return to those biblical principles for civil government. It’s about reclaiming what the Westminster Confession teaches about the magistrate’s role in upholding God’s moral law, not merely trying to get someone elected. Many young men are rediscovering these truths, not because they are abandoning the gospel, but because they see the need for a comprehensive Christian worldview that includes both personal repentance and godly civic engagement. They are looking for old truths. We read our Puritan paperbacks and that led us to read them on civil affairs too.
And again, I highly recommend Messiah the Prince—I think it would be helpful to anyone interested in the discussion.
With love and thank you for sharpening me,
Joseph
Wasn’t saying I was bothered by you ignoring my work. What bothered me is your warning me twice that I don’t know how to disciple young men who are currently enamored of Christian Nationalism, and that they are turning my message off b/c they judge me old, inane, cowardly, disengaged, or whatever word you choose speaking for them. This is a very old work for us in Bloomington and our fruit with such men is overflowing over many years. A very large part of our fruit has come from warning men against online fads of one sort and another and another and another…
As for your preaching repentance, sure you do. But most Christian Nationalists, just like all the other faddists before them, preach repentance only to the culture—which includes Evangelicalism. Pathetic, I say.
Then you write, “the magistrate is to uphold God’s law in the civil sphere.” Honestly brother, why do you keep saying this endlessly to a man whose entire history of preaching and his books say this over and over again, and you know it. Saying this repeatedly makes it appear to young dudes as if this is YOUR insight, but it’s not at all. Every last one of us who opposes the CN fad has been saying this our whole lives, so go say it to someone who doesn’t know it and hasn’t done it. Then tell me where you found them, other than cultural Christian churches.
Repeatedly I’ve recounted my work with the civil authorities IN OUR CHURCH commanding them to do that very thing. For decades. So please stop lecturing me on something you more than anyone should know I have done and done and done, and at times to great suffering and with tears.
As always, with love and affection,
1 Like
I found this article a helpful starting point.
1 Like
Let’s keep in mind that the version of the WCF that Bannerman interacts with is not the American Revision that almost all American Presbyterians (including Evangel Presbytery) hold to. There was good reason for the American revisions which sought to establish religious freedom after the debacle of imposed religion in England. The Westminster Divines were trying to change the status of a state already determined to establish religion. The Americans were ready to embrace the relative calm of religious freedom.
Original WCF 33.3:
“The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.”
American Revision:
“Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.”
5 Likes
I think the CN debate would be better informed if you were to look more at the situations of the Christians in the world where they are very much a minority. Two examples:
Malaysia and Singapore
Malaysia is majority-Islam and Singapore is majority-Confucian; in both places churches can and do exist, and they do evangelise (more so in Singapore).
Christians in the Gulf Arab states
The UAE has in it significant numbers of Christians, including evangelicals - guestworkers from India and the Philippines.
Reviewing their situations could shed some more light on the debate?
2 Likes