Hate on a Page

The Case for Christian Nationalism

I’m sure when he wrote his book by that title – The Case for Christian Nationalism – Stephen Wolfe did not consider himself hateful, nor did I have an inkling about how his book would make me feel. I had simply set about to educate myself – my greatest joy these days. You see, in 2024, as I researched a variety of issues, I kept encountering the term “White Christian Nationalism.” Now, I know what it means to be White and to be Christian, and I think “Nationalism” is a pretty basic concept. When I put them all together, though, and when I tried to consider this as a “movement,” I realized that I was just guessing. I simply had to dig in, read some original sources and some secondary sources, and find out what White Christian Nationalism truly means. I have a fairly good understanding now, based on many weeks of research (although I’m terribly disheartened by what I’ve learned), and I’m ready to share.

I began with Google, of course; some of the things I discovered took me absolutely by surprise, like the role of the Pope in all this (back in the fifteenth century). But I also came across a few credible looking sources that would lay out the whole thing in detail, so let me start there. (We’ll come back to the Pope later, I promise.) 

I found this 2022 book called The Case for Christian Nationalism by Stephen Wolfe, and I dove in. I’ll summarize here the concepts that seemed most critical; assume any quoted material is from Wolfe’s book, but know that words in bold print are most likely identified by me to call them to your attention.

In his first chapter, Wolfe says of Christians today, “...we’ve handed over, without much fuss, the divine powers ordained for good... All of life, including public life, ought to be Christian.” He offers this definition of “Christian Nationalism”: 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.” [Note that Wolfe never adds the word “White” to his concept, but the reader quickly understands that it is to be assumed. You will see...]

The “ideal arrangement for Christians,” he says, is “a totality of action... all the actions that a nation expects of its members for their overall, national good... Christian nationalism is a Christian people acting for their own good in light of their Christian nationhood... nations ought to order themselves to the Gospel in the interest of their heavenly good.”

Wolfe asserts that “Pagan and secularist nations are true nations, but they are incomplete nations. Only the Christian nation is a complete nation.” In such a nation, “the preaching of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments are available to all...and... people are encouraged, even culturally expected, to partake and be saved to eternal life.”

The Right of Exclusion

From this fundamental definition, Wolfe’s philosophy continues: “the formation of nations is part of God’s design and intention for man.” And then he turns to another of his major themes, one that we will see over and over, explaining that, “The instinct to live within one’s ‘tribe’ or one’s own people... is natural and good... allowing us to relate to others with common understanding and mutual expectations.” He claims that “sharing language is necessary for most meaningful civic activities,” adding that “the natural inclination to dwell among similar people is good and necessary... Indeed, one ought to prefer and to love more those who are more similar to him, and much good would result in the world if we all preferred our own and minded our own business... Since shared culture is necessary for living well, nations have a right of exclusion in the interest of cultural preservation... The Christian tradition has recognized that one cannot love all people equally, and indeed one should not... Nations can exclude others in the interest of cultural particularity.” 

Now I began to see how “White” comes into the picture. Wolfe will continue to refer to cultural “particularity” throughout the book – so often, in fact, that I’ve decided to bold that word and its derivatives at each use. I think it’s terribly important to recognize this dedication to “exclusivity.” As I write this, in March 2025, I hear on TV that Donald Trump issued an executive order last night proclaiming English the official language of the U.S. Will an “official religion” be soon to follow? Are we becoming “exclusive” as Wolfe desires 

But let’s return to The Case for Christian Nationalism. Because it is a supernatural truth that “Christianity is the true religion,” the author says, “it follows... that civil government ought to direct people to the Christian religion... An important question is whether a Christian nation can refuse to allow immigration of fellow Christians from foreign lands. I argue that they can,” Wolfe writes, further explaining, “the journey to eternal life in this world requires cultural particulars for that journey. A common language, for example...”

The Christian Prince

Now the author introduces us to the “Christian Prince” who is “the Christian magistrate... a great man, not a bureaucrat or policy wonk... [one] who can... shape the public imagination by means of charisma, gravitas and personality. The civil power of the prince comes immediately from God... his power was ordained by God for the good of civil communities.” 

In the section called “Liberty of Conscience,” Wolfe admits that “my argument seeks to justify the political and social privileging or exclusivity of Christianity... The civil restraint of false external religion is not punishment for offending God but the prevention of public harm... A Christian ruler is installed from and by the people of God.” He explains that “governmental and societal ‘neutrality’ are impossible and... secularism is pervasive and relentless.” He concludes that “established Christianity is better than its secularist alternative.”

Land and Language

In the chapter on “creation, fall, and redemption,” Wolfe introduces the concept of “dominion,” a term that didn’t mean a lot to me but will be important in this book. Apparently one of man’s earthly duties from God was “fulfilling the ‘dominion mandate’ – multiplying, filling, and subduing creation as the vice-regents of God on earth.” At the end of the book, the author will clearly connect the “dominion” concept with, literally, “a piece of dirt... to stake a claim for ourselves and contend for it... to stand at its boundaries and with resolve say mine to both fellow man and the wild.” More about dominion at the conclusion of the book ­– and it is interesting! That said, the term is repeated throughout the book, as in the following about Moral Law: “The dominion mandate cannot be a bare divine command that is disconnected from human nature and the sort of gifts God gave us. Taking dominion... proceeds from the very nature of man, and so it cannot be rescinded, even by God.”

Family and Fellowship

Moving on to “Civil Fellowships,” Wolfe says he will demonstrate here the assumption that “people would form geographically and culturally distinct nations.” He begins with “the natural family,” explaining that “Men and women were created for monogamous and perpetual heterosexual union. We call this the natural family, which forms the ‘domestic society’ [which] consists of man and wife with children or the anticipation of children.” He says “the basic unit is not individuals but teams of husband and wife.” The civil society, then, “is a society of households... filling the earth rather than individuals filling the earth.”

The purpose of such societies, the author explains is to provide “civil fellowship... We desire to do all these things with others.” 

Returning often to the theme of civil society being tied to a specific place, Wolfe asserts that “Our natural limitedness entails that individuals mature within a delimited space of interaction, and communities develop from these interactions... independent from other communities... in a localized space... distinct vis-à-vis other communities.” He says man’s “limitedness” also requires a “directed gregariousness... with a particular, bounded people.” It calls for “geographical closeness... shared understanding, expectations, and culture.” We will read throughout the book about this geographical limitedness and the need to be in that space only with those who are similar to us.

Dominion, not DEI

While he concedes that “cultural diversity is... a necessary consequence of human nature,” the author qualifies that by explaining that “particular practices are... ‘owned’ in a sense by a particular place and people...It is good that the particularity  of each community distinguishes it from the others... Man’s limitedness was not a divine mistake; neither is cultural diversity, separated geographically, an error... Thus, civil governments... promote cultural distinctives... man, by his nature, requires particularity and must dwell among similar people to live well.” 

By this point in the book, I was pretty sure I understood the role of “diversity and inclusion” – or not – in Christian nationalism. Next he quotes John Winthrop in a famous sermon: “some must be rich, some poor, some high and eminent in power and dignity; others mean and in submission.” (I suspected at this point that  I had also discovered his likely attitude toward “equity.”) In fact, Wolfe says, “The goodness of creation is not found in each part obtaining equality with every other part... The diversity of ranks in human society... is society’s perfection. Hence, by nature the perfection of human societies assumes an inegalitarian principle.”  

Expanding on the role of civil government, Wolfe explains that “each community... would contain a multiplicity of interests, pursuits, and ends... Clashing interests include externalities in production or in community development... Shared rules coordinate diverse activities and provide order and a well-functioning symbiosis... Civil society is a composition of households and men are the head of households... voting... would be conducted by men... Vocational associations... would likely be male-dominated as well... This would be ubiquitous around the world, as it follows logically from the divinely ordained (and hence universal), hierarchical arrangement of the household.”

The next topic is “Self-Preservation and Martial Virtue,” what the author calls “a necessary feature of masculine excellence, and effeminacy is no less a vice in a state of integrity than in a postlapsarian world.” He continues with a discussion of the dual role of civil magistracy, explaining that it is separate from spiritual ministry but complementary, both having “the same ultimate end – eternal life.” And, although civil government “does not wield a spiritual sword,” it is not precluded from “erecting public religious displays, incorporating religious elements into civil events, or publicly supporting spiritual ministry.”

Concluding the chapter on Creation, Wolfe says that, “Adams race, as it spread across the earth, would have formed distinct civil communities – each being culturally particular.”

From Depravity to Dominion

Moving then to the period of “redemption,” Wolfe begins with a section on “Total Depravity,” asserting that “The fall of man led to total depravity.” I won’t get into a long discussion of the biblical redemption story, but I will note that, well into this section, the author quotes Charles Hodge: “The Bible... approves of... peculiar love for the people of [one’s] own race and country.” Wolfe goes on to say, “The same is true of our instincts or ‘biases’ for our own people and country. These are natural to us by design.”

Later in this chapter on “redemption,” the author returns to the concept of “dominion,” Explaining that Christians are uniquely gifted by grace to establish this earthly dominion: “But restorative grace sets the redeemed apart on earth... and on that basis, Christians can and ought to exercise dominion in the name of God... 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... introduce equal love for all, or an overriding duty to the abstract ‘marginalized’ or to the abstract ‘outcast’ or to ‘identify the weak.’” (In case you had any notions about “inclusion”...)

Subordinating the Secular to the Sacred

“Christians ought to correct, direct, and adorn social life with Christianity... to order mankind to sacred things and his highest good... the chief aim of Christian nationalism is ordering the nation to the things of God – subordinating the secular to the sacred... The claim that the Gospel is mainly about eternal life  does not preclude the Christianization of civil institutions and laws or the improvement and correction of civil life by appealing to Scripture. 

Then, referring to “Dominion and the Divine Image,” Wolfe quotes one of his main sources, Calvin: “God has appointed to his children alone the whole world and all that is in the world... therefore all that unbelievers enjoy may be regarded as the property of others, which they rob or steal.”  The author goes on to claim that “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... we have no license to seize these things for ourselves, but... we can stand over the world as the true heirs of the world.” (And now I see why the Pope did what he did in the fifteenth century, but we’ll get to that...)

Nation and Nationalism

In the chapter entitled “Loving your Nation,” Wolfe refers to “our natural inclination to love and prefer those nearest and most bound to us,” claiming that “the instinct to love the familiar more than the foreign is good.” He says he’ll now discuss the fundamental relations of people and place, based on three principles:

• “Each of us has a people-group (i.e. an ethnicity)”

• “Each people-group can be conscious of itself”

• “Each people-group has the right to be for itself”

The author concedes that he is, in this book, “speaking largely to a Western European male audience,” stating that “my goal is to reinvigorate Christendom in the West – that is my chief aim.” As he continues, Wolfe introduces me to concepts beyond my ken, forcing me to pause for a bit of research. He writes, “The intimate connection of people and place as described here undermines the so-called creedal nation concept, which is popular in the United States among neo-conservatives, mainstream Republicans, and left-liberals.”

I will pause here, completely ignorant of the term “creedal nation concept,” to explore the “creedal” vs. “nationalist” definitions of American identity. I went with the definitions of an organization called “Providence” (from a quick Google search) – clearly a Christian nationalist-oriented group:

“In the creedal or civic definition of American identity, we think of America as the nation defined by the American Creed: by the principles of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence—broadly, the ideals of classical liberalism, the ideals of the American experiment. This is what Abraham Lincoln meant when he talked about America as a nation ‘conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.’ In the cultural or nationalist definition of American identity, we understand America as defined by shared cultural values. Which values are often left vague, but sometimes advocates will specify the cultural values of Anglo-Protestantism.”

Pardon me – I have to catch my breath. I have actually gone through life believing that our nation was “conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” I’ve believed it – thought it was good; I didn’t know it was some weird thing Abraham Lincoln had made up. And now I begin to wonder: Is this the teaching of American history that people complain is making White children feel guilty? I don’t know.

This Providence contributor, Paul D. Miller, explains: “Nationalists believe that humanity is divided into mutually distinct, internally coherent groups defined by shared traits like language, religion, or culture, and that these groups should each have their own governments.”   

My head is spinning, but back to Stephen Wolfe and his chapter on “Loving your Nation.” Having introduced the word that threw me (“creedal”), he now lists some of the “egalitarian themes” that “creedalists consider universally true,” including “equal protection under the law, equal opportunity... multicultural social projects...” He ends the discussion thus: “Neutrality between contrary conceptions of existence in the same space is impossible... the sense of we is rooted not in abstractions or judicial norms (e.g. equal protection) or truth-statements. Rather, the nation is rooted in a pre-reflective, pre-propositional love for one’s own.” (And now, having lived all these years, I must confess that I’ve never before read a statement like that in regard to America. Where have I been all my life?)

People, Places, and Particularities

In “People, Place and Things,” the author explains that, “In my usage, place is a meaning-invested space, generated by human activity, whose meaning is entirely dependent on a human relation to it.” He refers to “places... having meaning that exists only in our human or cultural relation to these spaces.” The “distinction between house and home,” he says, “is crucial...We should not demote these particular meanings in comparison with universal ones.” He continues: “The stability of community requires that the people have a common relation to the space they inhabit... a world of places, each with its rules, appropriate disposition, and lodged sentiments.” 

 “Given its particularity, the affections embodied and communicated via places are fragile. They depend on a particular human relation, and so the adornment of meaning is lost when that relation ceases.” And there’s more: “Familiarity is not limited to the private sphere, however... familiarity of place is essential for living well because it coordinates action with others and permits predictability of success in our daily endeavors. But higher-order familiarity makes possible a public home... it is our homeland, a place worthy of our sacrifice... We must become consciously aware of home, of those latent affections that we naturally leave in the background of life. These affections now need to be articulated, affirmed, protected.”

Now moving to a section called “Nation,’ Wolfe explains that he hopes he’s demonstrated that “what is most meaningful to our lives and what is required to live well are particularity and sharing that particularity with others. Particularity is distinctive to a people not only with regard to the people but also to a people in place.”  The author laments the concealment and suppression of “people-groups... through the homogenizing forces of state capitalism and capitalist statecraft and through ethnic privileging of woke capitalism – all in the interest of a cosmopolitan, super-rich elite of capitalism.”

Declaring that “each people-group ought to self-affirm and act for self,” the author now offers his “justification of Christian nationalism: A Christian people, whose good is found both in cultural particularity and in a universal religion, can and must  be for itself as a distinct people in the interest of earthly and heavenly good, for itself and posterity.” He says he is arguing for “a conscious articulation or sense of one’s people as distinguished from others,” concluding that “no nation (properly speaking) is composed of two or more ethnicities.”

The author goes on to more fully define his meaning of “ethnicity,” including terms like this: “familiarity with others based on common language... customs... social expectations... religion... sharing the same or very similar topography of experience... a collective sense of homeland... mutual trust... a shared sense of we... particularities...” He says these are “the people to whom you are naturally drawn, bearing similarities...” But, he warns, “in our everyday mode of life, familiarity is very much left in the background,” warning of “language barriers, spatial disorientation, and confusions over laws, manners... ‘ethnic’ distinctives.”

“Nation” vs. Foreigners

So, what is a “nation” according to Wolfe? It originates in “natural relations – those of...kin... because one’s kin lived here with the extended families of others for generations.” He asserts that “blood relations matter,” explaining that “The same people living in the same place for many generations can see each other as cousins of a sort, since all are connected to a core ancestry.”

But it’s not just blood ties, we are told, “as if all we need are DNA tests.” He quotes Ernest

Renan: “A nation is... the possession in common of a rich legacy of memories... present consent, the desire to live together, the will to perpetuate the value of the heritage.” And then he turns to the “Principle of Similarity,” jumping immediately to “particulars... that can be ascribed only to some people.” He explains that “Similarities in particulars is the ground of greater love for some over others... We ought to love in a higher degree and more intensely  those who are more like us.” (Well, Mom and Dad, there go my 12 years of Catholic education! Guess you wasted your money on that, because that sure ain’t what I was taught at St. Therese School and Xavier High!)

Wolfe continues to elucidate his theory of nationalism, explaining that “The human instinct to socialize and dwell with similar people is universal... natural... for your good.” He says that “only in societies of similar people can people achieve the complete good... the clearest example of this enablement is having a common language.” He turns to Plato to explain that “the absence of a common language leads not only to frustrated collective action but to conflict,” adding that “at least some particularity is a prerequisite for fellowship.” Wolfe provides examples of such particulars: “the little rules, expectations, manners, and meanings of things, actions, expressions, etc.” He says that “an ethnic group must be a self-conscious group, “ and “an in-group, by definition, has out-groups – a distinction of us and them that excludes others.”

Continuing with the “Principle of Difference,” the author explains that exclusion isn’t necessarily malicious or the result of lack of benevolence, but it recognizes “the goods provided by similarity and solidarity in that similarity. To exclude an out-group is to recognize a universal good for man... made possible only by respecting and conserving difference.” Again re-emphasizing the importance of particularity in civic fellowship, Wolfe explains the problem with “foreigners”: They “undermine and disrupt... symbiosis, generating hostility and antipathy.” According to Althusius, “diversity destroys unity.” Wolfe says this was “well recognized in the Christian tradition,” adding that Althusius correctly affirms that “cultural diversity produces conflict... [through] antipathy for each other... sedition, subversion, and damage to the life of the commonwealth.”

The author explains that “conflict between such groups is itself a natural consequence of contrary customs.” He refers to Thomas Aquinas, who asserted “that regular interaction with foreigners is harmful to civil life.” Then Wolfe offers Rudyard Kipling’s The Stranger as a good explanation of what happens when one encounters a foreigner. I’ll give you just the two final stanzas:

The men of my own stock,

Bitter bad they may be,

But, at least, they hear the things I hear,

                  And see the things I see;

And whatever I think of them and their likes

                  They think of the likes of me.

This was my father’s belief

                  And this is also mine:

Let the corn be all one sheaf –

                  And the grapes be all one vine,

Ere our children’s teeth are set on edge

                  By bitter bread and wine.

Following that poem, Stephen Wolfe asserts that “people of different ethnic groups... cannot have a life together that goes beyond mutual alliance.” But he clarifies: “I am not saying that ethnic majorities today should work to rescind citizenship from ethnic minorities...” [Whew!] but he continues, “perhaps in some cases amicable ethnic separation along political lines...” Why? “Each person ought to... prefer their own people over others.”

In-Groups and Out-Groups

Would it surprise you to know that the next section is entitled “Loving the Neighbor”? (Nothing surprises me anymore.) Wolfe begins with the concession that this in-group/out-group theory is a bit troubling to some in the West, some Christians asking, “Aren’t we called to love all equally?” Traditionally, Wolfe says, Christianity has pretty much demonstrated “almost ubiquity of the opposite view,” distinguishing between “near and far neighbor.” He says “We are not, therefore, ‘to love all equally alike.’”  Quoting Sam Willard, he explains, “There are some whom we ought to be more concerned for than others.” Wolfe says, “Thus, the equal love doctrine is false... we know by instinct and reason that... we ought to prefer our own nation and countrymen over others. This instinct... is natural and, therefore, good... A community of similar people provides the best social conditions for the communication of gifts and achieving collective goals.” 

You know, when I started on this project, I fully intended to summarize this book and then, as I always do, recommend you read the entire thing yourself. At this point, I’m not so sure I’d make that recommendation... 

But, we push on to the “Types of Love,” and they are benevolence, beneficence, and complacence, we are told. Because similar people “share a commitment to certain particular or cultural goods,” the author explains, “there are more ways to love similar people in concrete action.” He says that “love is not merely a matter of... doing something good, but something about the person in relation to you.” He again asserts that “living well requires shared cultural particularity... one ought to have both positive regard for his cultural distinctives and ought to act to secure them in the interest of his own good.” 

Wolfe’s discussion of “complacent self-love,” specifically, seems warm and joyous. With regard to human relations, he says, such love “is a delight in dwelling among your people on your native soil... bounded by love... reserved for one’s own people and place... bound up with oneself in relation to his country and countrymen.” Again he mentions “the sharing of customs, pastimes, and traditions;  and the union of someone in relation to his fellow countrymen is based in those particulars. Thus, to encounter a countryman is to encounter oneself.”

Our Particularities, Our Land

Again explaining the relationship between countrymen and land, the author says, “We have intense connections with the land on which we and our natural relations have labored... mastered land that has come under one’s dominion... a sense of ownership – of owned space.” How is this accomplished? “Through a people’s dominion-taking and dominion-sustaining activity, the people as a corporate entity has owned space... The people have a sense of collective ownership... brought it under dominion.” (As I read these words, I cannot help but think of the indigenous peoples of this continent who absolutely had loving dominion and “particulars,” and we know what happened to their nations. Was it okay because they were not Christian? The pope thought so, but more on that later...)

It's a “people-place symbiosis,” Wolfe writes. An individual “loves particular people in a particular place because his family did so too, and through his connection with his family and their activity with others, he has a home-land and a people... The instinct for distinct nationality is good and reliable.” The author laments that people in support of nationalism have to “repeatedly and tiresomely disclaim and denounce any hint of ‘xenophobia’ and ‘racism.’” (Ya think?!) “Each nation,” he posits, “ought to seek and have sufficient political and social autonomy to order and secure themselves according to their particularities.” He concedes that a nation, “acting for its own good, which includes conservation of those ties of affection,” might be “controversial at least to liberal and left-wing nationalism.”

“The most pernicious illness...”

When a people “affirm that this place is ours,” Wolfe asserts, “It follows that the principle of exclusion is a necessary object of the national will” as the nation “recognizes its own concrete and fragile particularity.” He says it’s simply a “matter of principle” that “nations by means of civil law would deny the universal reception of foreigners.” He quotes theologian Alastair Roberts: “Mass immigration... is a profoundly socially destructive force... It fractures the foundations of society... It is... a matter of a host people being steadily dispossessed of their land by a liberal polity.” (Is that what is called the “great replacement theory,” I wonder?) Wolfe goes on to suggest that hospitality to a stranger is good, but “no individual, family, or nation is duty-bound to welcome strangers to the detriment of the good of those most near and bound... guests have duties... foreigners... have unique duties.”

Returning again to Althusius, the author quotes him: “foreigners, outsiders, aliens, strangers... [should] mind their own business, make no strange inquiries... adapt themselves...”  Wolfe states that “The foreigner’s fundamental principle is conformity,” and then he adds “humility, deference and gratitude.... The foreigner should mute his own customary ways... and the hosts have every right to... deportation.”

The conclusion of chapter three is rich with takeaways, so let’s begin: “The talk of ethnicity as something fundamental to everyday life makes many in the West, especially in America, very uncomfortable. But the modern West is weird.” He mentions the West’s “strangeness” especially in relation to “an ideology of universality. The modern West sees its values of openness, tolerance, and liberty... as universal... a space fit for all people... This explains in part why Western peoples are so willing to receive masses of non-western immigrants... [who] often end up transforming neighborhoods into their own particular cultural image.”

Wolfe disparages this “ideology of universality,” saying of such a man, “His in-group is all people... But in perverse fashion, he is his own in-group’s out-group.” He calls this “a bizarre self-denigration rooted in guilt and malaise,” with “loss and humiliation” as the point. That man feels “euphoric,” the author claims; “his own degradation is thrilling.” In fact, the author says, “This is his psycho-sexual ethno-masochism, the most pernicious illness of the Western mind.” And then, finally, a cold, sideways nod to those indigenous peoples I mentioned above: “Ultimately, the modern Westerner resides in another’s land. This is true not because he stole it centuries earlier, but because he keeps and maintains it for the taking of outsiders.” I pause here and try to imagine a response. I’ve never heard or read such a philosophy. I imagine Donald Trump would love it, should he read. But let’s go on...

On the Rhetoric of Equity

Wolfe seems very worked up at this point. He claims of the Westerner, “his own dispossession has become the Westerner’s only good... [he] creates a well-ordered space... for his replacements... But since Western values lack universality in reality, equality is never achievable.” Now he cites “identity politics,” calling it “an exploitation of the promise of Western values in order to secure group advantage in the face of unequal background conditions. This is why the rhetoric of ‘equity’ requires institutions to actively discriminate against the ‘privileged.’ Most left-wing social movements exploit Western universality and Western guilt.”

Western man, the author claims, “gets caught in a feedback loop: equality... fails; [he] blames himself... offers restitution and reparation... he receives more immigration; equality fails again... and it repeats over and over... The Western mind needs to be critiqued in order to free it from exploitation and self-disparagement. The key is... affirming the truth and denying the false and absurd... accusations... like ‘racist’ or ‘fascist’ or ‘xenophobe.’” (My goodness! I came to this author simply to understand what is meant by “Christian nationalism.”) He goes on to rue our “psychological inclination to affirm error... a product of psycho-social conditioning... that returns us to the euphoria of fantasy and absurdity.” 

So, as I struggle to understand just what “Christian nationalism” is, I read, instead, that “the primary obstacle for the embrace of nationalism is modern Western psychology.” Wolfe claims that we project our aspirations “on the other (to whom you toss your national birthright)... ultimately your people will self-immolate in national suicide.” I’m afraid to turn the page and look at Chapter Four!

The Superiority of the Christian Nation

Indeed, Wolfe opens the chapter on “Perfecting Your Nation: The Christian Nation” with a quotation from one Johann Herder: “The Christian religion was only ever able and meant to permeate everything.” The author explains that, when a nation is identified as “Christian,” that “does not destroy, eliminate, or preclude the features of the nation.” It is, rather, “a species of nationalism.” He assures the reader that a Christian nation is “the nation perfected.” He insists that “nations have always... had the duty to acknowledge God and orient themselves collectively to his heavenly kingdom.” Therefore “Christianity and national particularity are inseparable.” It is redundant, Wolfe says, to say “Christian American,” because “Christianity is assumed in ‘American,’ and the American flag implicitly symbolizes the Christian flag.” (Well, I never...)

“The Christian family is the natural family,” we are told. However, “The universal truths of Christianity do not nullify national particularity. Each Christian nation has a distinct way of life.” Christian nations, however, “are set apart or holy in relation to non-Christian nations... because the nation has brought itself, by grace, underGod as nations ought to do by nature.” Then they “may attribute prosperity to their national obedience... Nation...may learn humility... and discipline in times of divine displeasure... Nations are real entities, not ad hoccreations of man. They exist by nature to be under God.” 

So, “Christian nationalism is a Christian nation acting to secure and protect itself as a distinct Christian people and to direct itself (via Christian leaders) to procure the... heavenly life in Christ.” Wolfe says he will now explain “the one essential part of Christian national action, namely civil direction in true religion.” He provides us this syllogism:

a.        Civil government ought to direct its people to the true religion.

b.        The Christian religion is the true religion.

c.        Therefore civil government ought to direct its people to the Christian religion.

“One might claim,” the author suggests, “that ‘true religion’ is equivocal.” (Good, because I would claim that.) Then he takes us back to the syllogism, and, voila! From there, Wolfe reiterates over and over the role of civil government: to direct its people to eternal life via the “true religion.” He concludes time after time that “civil government can and ought to direct the people to the Christian religion.”

Excluding Immigrants

Now Wolfe introduces the section on “Excluding Fellow Christians.” He says we “have to address the issue of foreign Christian immigration. On what grounds can a Christian nation exclude fellow Christians from their land?” He immediately reminds us yet again of those “particulars.” He says “they are not in themselves natural, and so they are not universal... the culture is part of the place, as a territorial cultivation... [giving people] a right to difference. From this right comes the necessity of exclusion in civil policy. My view is that the principle of exclusion... morally permits a Christian nation to deny immigration to Christian foreigners.” He explains further that the “spiritual brotherhood” is “fit for a heavenly kingdom... wholly inadequate... for living well in this world.” The author again invokes the importance of “a common language” which “is absent from spiritual brotherhood. Unity in Christ,” he explains, “does not entail or provide unity in earthly particulars.”

He continues: “Civil fellowship is what makes strong church fellowship possible, because people do not lose their particularity when they pass through the doors of a church building.” He explains that administration of religion requires, “at a bare minimum, a common language... at least a core culture... cultural diversity harms civil unity, for it undermines the ability for a community to act with unity for its good... The consequence of multiculturalism is secularization... open conflict.” Wolfe states that, “Most likely the injection of diversity if on a mass scale will result in a community of strife, distrust, discord, apprehension, and misunderstanding... the more suitable condition... is... cultural similarity.” And, he explains, “Thus, receiving masses of people who are similar with regard to faith and dissimilar in other ways is generally bad policy.”

Historically, the author claims, immigration just hasn’t worked. Reformation history “is replete with examples of Christian refugees in foreign Christian countries causing public disturbance, civil strife, and social segregation.” Wolfe urges Christian nations to “be hospitable” but “no Christian nation is obligated to... undermine its long-term ability to provide the complete good to its people... The nation’s first duty is to its own people, including its future generations.” He warns against “sentimentality and untethered empathy,” recommending aid to a Christian nation “by aiding it in flourishing as a people in their own place... not by importing that people.”  

Cultural Christianity

“In a Christian nation, social power is placed in the service of the Christian religion... ‘cultural Christianity,’ a term that has become an object of derision.” The author asserts that “Prejudice is an instinctive, pre-reflective judgment” which can perfect reason, “... for  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 rightness of Christian belief and practice.” Explaining that both social power (untouchable by the law) and civil power are necessary in society, he says “A Christian nation as a nation has social power and as a Christian nation, this power is directed to Christian ends.”

Wolfe then distinguishes “cultural Christianity” from “Christian culture.” He says that “cultural Christianity... warms the people’s hearts to Christianity.” It cannot by itself “bring about anyone’s salvation. It is a preparativemode... [It] provides... social direction to perform Christian practices in every area of life.” Referring again to the “great Puritan statesman,” John Winthrop, the author explains that “few people know that the pinnacle of Christian ethics for Winthrop was not aiding the poor or the ‘marginalized.’ Rather it was... a hierarchical community with a variety of stations, duties, and gifts.” Wolfe then explains “the ethics of mutual aid” like this: “the powerful showing an abundance of love while the lowly show an abundance of trust and service.”

But the Threats...

Turning now to a topic called “Celebrating Decline,” Wolfe asks: “Wouldn’t you prefer to live in a community where you can trust your neighbors, having mutual expectations of conduct... with Christian standards of decency, respect and admonishment?” He continues: “Wouldn’t you prefer some common and good standard of living by which one neighbor can confront and correct another?” Then he cites “the moral degeneracy of our time,” warning: “Try raising your kids in today’s social environment.” He proffers a Christian school as the best source of “an ideological security service,” adding that most cannot afford that. He says all, regardless of wealth, must “protect their children from... the latest progressive agenda... Left-wing ideology is now the norm... What is most worrisome is... the moral ideology... Our problem is a regime-enforced moral ideology as the standard for moral respectability.”

Wolfe’s discussion of “Patriotism in Worship” is interesting. He says, “There is no avoiding the presence of cultural particulars in church worship. Sermons, for example, are in the vernacular language.” But, he continues, “I’m ambivalent about national flags inside or outside churches, but national flags should not be displayed in a sanctuary and especially not within sight during worship...Nor must Christian politics be... organized by the instituted church. There is no need, therefore, to incorporate national symbols or patriotic elements in formal worship, except as fitting our heaven-oriented worship of God.” (I can’t help but wonder what this man would say about the current pressure to display the Ten Commandments in public schools!)

Concluding this chapter, the author writes, “Christians need to recover an assertive will for their good... That means opposing, suppressing, and excluding the very sort of people who run the American regime... distrust atheists, decry blasphemy, correct any dishonoring of Christ, orient life around the Sabbath... repudiate... attempts to subvert a durable Christian order... unashamedly and confidently assert Christian supremacy over the land.” Cultural Christianity must be preserved, he says, and “its conservation depends on continuity of peoplehood through generations... being particular is an inheritance of a people; only they can conserve it... Christianity as expressed culturally is always particular and transmitted through natural generations.”

Now, halfway through Wolfe’s book, I feel confident I know why Project 2025 demonizes “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” I am also starting to wonder what I would do, should anyone succeed in making America an officially Christian nation. Although my “particulars” wouldn’t be a problem, my philosophy absolutely would! But let’s read on.

“The true religion”

Chapter six is about civil law, and I really don’t find much remarkable here until we get to the part on “civil command.” Here Wolfe points out (wisely, I think), that “civil law cannot command belief... The civil command ‘believe in Christ’ violates a necessary condition of belief, namely, that belief is a matter of persuasion.” He concedes, therefore, that “exercising faith cannot be an object of civil command, even for the baptized.” Writing about “righteous laws” specifically, the author asserts that, “Though good laws require human determination, they are nevertheless from God, not only providentially but also in root and mode: They follow God’s natural law (the root) and are promulgated and enlivened by God’s servant, the civil magistrate (the mode)... A just body of civil law is from God.”

Then the author focuses specifically on “Civil Law in a Christian Commonwealth,” opening with: “A Christian commonwealth is the civil regime of Christian nationalism... a Christian nation acting for itself to secure (across generations) both its earthly and heavenly good... acting for the peace and good order of the instituted church.” He asserts that “action, not declaration, makes a commonwealth Christian... Not every particular civil law of a Christian civil government is distinctively Christian... most are simply human.” He explains that some laws will simply “pertain to man as man, not as a Christian. But... they belong to a totality of law that is Christian.” Speaking of “Christian actions,” Wolfe says “they contribute what is necessary to the whole... a whole that is Christian because it orders to both earthly and heavenly good.”

Soon Wolfe gets to the big assertion: “Civil government ought to support the spiritual administration of the Christian religion... Why? Because the Christian religion is the true religion.” Wow! He claims that “Civil law... can suppress public blasphemy, heresy, and flagrant disregard for public worship among the baptized... because the end... of natural reason is Christian truth... A Christian body of law is the only complete and truebody of law.” No room for argument, apparently. He continues: “Every civil law is binding only if it is derived from God’s law.” The magistrate, Wolfe claims, acts “only as a mediator, a sort of vicar of divine civil rule.” 

Now the author introduces me, yet again, to a concept I’ve never heard of: “Modern Theonomy.” He explains that this movement “arose in the late 20th century, a time of... competing universal visions – between liberalism and communism... Modern theonomy,” he explains, “promised to reverse moral decay.” Bewildered Americans found this appealing, he says: “a simple way to be on God’s side.” But, Wolfe says, “Christian nationalism is a coherent alternative to modern theonomy... it flows directly out of classical Protestantism, and modern theonomy does not.” So, I guess “classical Protestantism” must be really important; I have no background in that subject. 

Wolfe gets rather technical and confusing here, but he seems to identify some weaknesses in modern theonomy: “Theonomists seem to have neglected social power, social cohesion, and cultural particularity.” Ah! There it is! That “particularity” that makes “other” unacceptable – unless, this far into the book, I’m not reading it correctly. He goes on to say about theonomists, “Sometimes they are downright hostile to nationalism, the principle of similarity, and cultural preservation.” Again, I’m a bit confused, but I think that “principle of similarity” part is about those “particularities” again.

In discussing “Epistemic Limitations,” the author says that “some laws are clearly unjust, such as forbidding the public worship of God, demanding that one worship false gods or renounce Christ...” He reminds us that the civil magistrate is the “Christian prince,” concluding that, “He is, or ought to be, the quintessential great man.” And so we move to a chapter on that prince, and what a chapter it is!

The Prince – and Gender!

We are told that “Christian nationalism exists when the Christian national will for itself is mediated through Christian civil leaders.” The author says, “I am not calling for monarchical regime... certainly not an autocracy, though I envision a measured and theocratic Caesarism.” (What??! How does this “Caesarism” work?) “The will of the people is not a set of policies, as if the prince were a mere delegate to enact their will concerning particulars... he is bound to what is good, namely, the moral law of God... the power of magistracy – civil power – is part of the created order... The power to order the whole must come from God; it does not inhere in or originate from any man or men in aggregate.” 

But, the author explains, “Recognizing the true God (or Christ) is unnecessary to possess this power, for having this power is simply a natural consequence of the people’s combination into human society... Hence, true civil authority does not depend on true religion.” (I am confused.) Wolfe now returns to his male vs. female theme: “But unlike the family, in which domestic power is immediately granted to the man, ‘civil power is... a natural attribute of a perfect human community.’” The community then consents to the power of the ruler: “Consent is the mechanism by which divine civil power is bestowed upon the prince.”

Wolfe clarifies consent to be ruled in terms of gender: “The proper motivation to submit arises not from viewing domination as a good in itself or from a psychological need to feel dominated; these are effeminate motivations. The proper motivation is quite the opposite. Submission is motivated by the rational need for ordered liberty... Submission is good only insofar that it conduces to living well.” When that happens, the Prince holds a “divine office,” we are told: “Civil power being original to God, the prince mediates God’s divine civil rule... he makes public judgments in application of God’s natural law, effectively creating law.” He even exceeds the church minister, because his office is “most like God.” (I keep thinking of the mayor, wondering if that’s what the author is talking about. Or the governor? Or the president?) Rutherford is referenced here, calling our Prince “a little god, and so is above any one man.”

“Having the highest office on earth, the good prince resembles God to the people. Indeed, he is the closest image of God on earth.” (Please tell me Wolfe is not referring to the president of the United States!) Wolfe says this Prince wields “divinely granted power,” and that “He inspires noble action, sacrifice, and common affection, and he casts a vision for national greatness... Thus, one looks more to the prince for his good than even church ministers.” Who is this prince of which he speaks??!  Have we ever had such a one?

At this point in his discussion of the Prince, Mr. Wolfe diverges into an area that nearly set my hair on fire. I’m going to discipline myself here to stick to quoted material and try to keep my opinions to myself. The section is called “Great Men and Egalitarianism,” and it begins like this: “Our age suffers from a dearth of great men... We live in a de facto gynocracy.” [I have to tell you: I had never heard that term before, so I looked it up. Even AI struggled to remain objective: A gynocracy is a government run by women. The term is often used in a disparaging way.] Wolfe continues: “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... Therapy and self-care are praised as an achievement.” (Why don’t you tell me how you really feel about me, Mr. Wolfe?!)

But wait – there’s more. “Instead of analytical thought, viewpoints are backed by institutionally conferred credibility and by threats of managerial-bureaucratic reprisal for disagreement.” (Is he talking about the reign of Elon Musk? No, this was published in 2022...) “Western nations are leading themselves into decline (especially demographically) as feminine empathy, which is suitable for the domestic sphere, enacts gynocratic contradictions and self-destructive inclusivist civil policies... Our moment requires of us to stand against that feminine egalitarian impulse, ingrained within us from early age, that views the arc of providence as bending toward equality.” (Equality? Imagine that!) No, “The prince must be committed to natural hierarchy... exclusivity... and particularism (... unique cultural features); and he should return us to masculine society, which alone can remedy the gynocratic contradictions that plague our society.” 

Moving on: “A prince is a Christian prince only if he wields his power so that the totality of national action is Christian... he acts as a pious father to the people, wielding a non-spiritual and non-coercive power of admonishment and exhortation. His personal example of piety and faith can shape that of his people.” (Please tell me he isn’t referring to the President of the United States.) “The Christian prince should use civil power to ensure that the culture of his people reflects true religion.” Wolfe says this prince must “Christianize civil life... by adorning and perfecting it with true religion... The prince can adorn himself and his residence with Christian symbols... His military or militia... can be designated ‘solders of Christ.’” (OMG!) “... the Christian prince should... do everything in this power to make his people’s culture, as a whole, Christian.”

That is pretty clear. And then we move on to “Princely power and the church” with this observation: “A husband does not ordinarily fulfill the duties of his wife, but he procures what is necessary for her to perform those duties, establishes the conditions for her to perform them well, approves her good performance, and corrects her when she performs her duty poorly.” I don’t know why he had to say that, but I am biting my tongue. Oh, I see: Using that “wife” thing as an example, the author explains that the Christian prince should treat his church similarly: “He should procure what is necessary for the pure worship of God but not lead the worship or institute new articles of faith or sacred ceremonies. If the ministry degrades, he should reform it.” [Like a wife] “He should correct the lazy and erring pastor, but not perform the duties of pastor.”[or of wife, just so we’re clear]

The prince, we are told (the civil magistrate) “should also fund the ministry of the Word and provide schools for theological education... [he] protects the church as a servant of Christ, not as a servant of pastors... he ought to order the civil realm to the divine precepts of Christ.” In addition, he is to “both suppress false religion and to establish true religion.” (I wish I knew exactly who this prince is. Are we talking about the mayor? The governor? The president?) The author provides a specific example of what the Prince may do: “A prince may require the elevation of the pulpit above the Lord’s Table in church construction.” (Hmmm...) But here is what he must do: “...to the furthest extent possible, remove earthly temptations and distractions of this world so that his people’s attention is on God.”

And the chapter concludes with a slight feeling of deflation: “Though in the meantime we may need to settle for civil leaders who fail to live up to the standards of a Christian prince, we should pray that God would raise up such a leader from among us: one who would suppress the enemies of God... elevate his people... restore masculine prominence... and a spirit for dominion... and inspire a love of one’s Christian country.” (Donald Trump???)

Violent Revolution Justified

Chapter Eight is on “The Right to Revolution,” warning that “a hostile and secularist ruling class roams free.”  This chapter, we are informed, will “justify violent revolution... [that] uses force as the instrument to unseat civil rulers.” Such a “forced unseating,” we’re told, “can be the ruler’s acquiescence or flight, effectively unseating himself, or by direct physical capture... [It] could be ‘bloodless’ or non-violent, though that is less likely.” However it goes down, the act “effectively reclaims civil authority from the ruler. The people reclaim it... to establish just and suitable arrangements for a peaceful and godly life.” Of course, the “justness of any revolution... depends on whether conditions are actually tyrannical.”

 The Threat of Liberalism

“Religion in the Modern West” begins with this desire: “If only the enemies of true religion were so bold to openly attack the church... Today we contend with the soft power of liberalism... destroying religiosity in the West without firing a shot.” Wolfe refers to a Polish philosopher, Ryszard Legutko, who “lived under both communism and liberalism”:

“All the objectives the communists set for themselves, and which they pursued with savage brutality, were achieved by the liberal democrats who, almost  without any effort and simply by allowing people to drift along with the flow of modernity, succeeded in... secularizing entire societies, making secularism the militant ideology, pushing religion to the sidelines... inspiring powerful mass culture with strong antireligious bias... Is not... this... reality... very close to the vision of the future without religion that the communists were so excited about?”

“Secularism,” Wolfe explains, “dominates the institutions and has normalized a ‘neutral’ value system that conflicts with Christian moral teaching. ‘Neutrality’ and ‘diversity’ provide the perfect cover... to undermine and control religion.” The result, he says, is “the normalization of secularism... The retreat to universality is an expression not of Christianity but of normalized modern liberalism.” He continues: “Christian Americans should see themselves as under a sort of occupation... forcing your Christianity to exist only in the walls of churches.” Now Wolfe cites Supreme Court decisions:

• 1962 – Denied public schools the right to require students to recite a prayer.

• 1963 – Denied public schools the right to open the day with Bible reading.

• 2000 – Denied public school students the right to pray before high school football games.

“How is this not tyranny?” the author asks. “The regime is the tyrant,” he explains, although he concedes that “resisting tyranny does not necessitate a revolution.” He asks whether Christian people, representing a minority of the population, can revolt against a tyranny and “establish over all of the population a Christian commonwealth.” He asks whether they can do so “without positive consent of the whole,” and his answer: “I affirm they can.”

Revolt against Tyranny

Wolfe reiterates that civil administration was “always for the people of God... Today, those who are restored in Christ are the people of God. Thus, civil order and administration is for them.” He asks rhetorically: “Would not Christians have to disregard the non-Christian withholding of consent? They likely would... If a Christian minority can constitute a secure commonwealth for true justice and the complete good, then they can disregard the withholding of consent by non-Christians. Non-Christians... are not entitled to political equality.” (I couldn’t make this stuff up if I tried.) He goes on, “The Christian’s posture towards the earth ought to be that it is ours, not theirs, for we are co-heirs in Christ.” 

And then he returns to those damnable immigrants: “What about civil commands that are not wrong in themselves but evil in effect? It is not evil to receive immigrants into one’s country, for example. But it can produce certain evils.” He quotes Althusius again: “persons born in different regions... are unable to come together  at the same time without antipathy toward each other.”  Wolfe returns now to his common theme: “The particularity of people and place is a necessary good for living well, for it is the ground of robust civil fellowship... serving as the ethno-cultural substructure for cultural Christianity... The Christian religion flourishes in particularity... Too much immigration and bad immigration policies damage the people... such policies... can be tyrannical.”  

He concludes the section with this question: “Is revolution permissible in defense of particularity? Since particularity is a fundamental condition of living well, undermining that good is tyrannical and so it is a just cause for revolution.” (This book was published in 2022. I suspect the author is very happy with the second Trump administration.)

The author’s final conclusion to the chapter on revolution must be offered here in whole:

“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. Be we do not have to be like this. We have the power and right to act. Let us train the will and cultivate our resolve.”

“Liberty of Conscience”

Wolfe opens this chapter with the declaration that “Neither the outward suppression of false religion nor the public exclusivity of Christianity violates the sacredness of conscience... All attempts to coerce belief is unjust.” He moves to “Internal Religion” now, explaining that “The church’s duty is to teach true religion, and the civil government must ensure that truth is taught and that harmful false teaching is restrained.” (Here I am wondering: Do I as an American have anything to say about what is “true religion” and what is “harmful false teaching”?) 

The section continues: “False religion is a crime against God, and it can cause harm to one’s fellow man... magistrates can restrain false religion in the interest of public good.” Then Mr. Wolfe moves to “external religion,” offering clarification of “the fundamental point of division between classical and modern views on the liberty of conscience.” Again, I believe it’s best to share his entire statement:

“The question is 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 expressions 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. Modern religious liberty advocates deny this and I affirm it.”

With that affirmation of the right of civil leaders to punish non-Christians for being non-Christians, Wolfe moves to a section called “Principle,” conceding “I will grant here that civil authorities should not prosecute crimes solely against God... But the assumption that external false religion does not harm souls is clearly false... public actions, such as heretical teaching, can harm the soul.” And again he lays out his argument: “(1) Any outward action that has the potential to cause harm to others is rightfully subject to civil restraint or punishment (in principle). (2) External false religion has the potential to cause harm to others. Therefore, (3) external false religion is rightfully subject to civil restraint or punishment.” This extends to “all actions that cause harm,” he says, even if they are meant to express “inward religious beliefs.”

His point seems to be that expressions are outward, even though they reflect something inward, so they are punishable. He asserts that civil authorities ought to order civil space into an exclusively Christian space, eliminating anti-Christian influences. (I am speechless.) He then lays out a lengthy argument for why the civil magistrate is qualified to make such judgments and take such actions. Following that argument, Wolfe works the reader through six intricate steps to demonstrate that the state can “adjudicate between competing claims with regard to supernatural revelation.” He says “the accusation that restraining and punishing heresy will produce hypocrisy goes back at least to the 16th century,” explaining that today folks worry that some might be forced to “live a lie.” Wolfe calls this “absurd.” If the fear of civil reprisal keeps one from committing murder, he reasons, does that makes the would-be-murderer a hypocrite? “Since civil law can restrain murder, it can restrain false religion.”

He continues: “Civil power ought to support the spiritual power as the body supports the soul.” This, he says, is the fundamental principle:

“The civil magistrate may restrain outward expressions of false religion that, in his judgment, (1) can injure souls, (2) are subversive to Christian civil government, Christian culture, and sacred ministry, or (3) threaten civil disruption or unrest; and he restrains in order to establish or maintain the best outward conditions for his people to live ‘a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.’”

This, Wolfe explains, “is not an end in itself but a means to a godly and tranquil public life.” It is, he says, “a matter of prudence.”

We can expect our civil magistrate, the author says, “to understand the most basic principles of man’s duty... and to know what clearly violates these duties, namely atheism, polytheism, and idolatry; strange and profane rites; blasphemy and sacrilege; and profanation of the Sabbath. These principles and their violations should be indisputable to a Christian magistrate.” He explains that “a secular or ‘neutral’ civil government... must be bad for people. Isn’t the moral insanity of our time proof enough?” This is followed by a critique of “non-religious regimes... [they] make politics a sort of religion... By eliminating public religion, secularism generates its own ultimate commitments that are false, idolatrous, and harmful to all but especially and most importantly harmful to the church.”

Life in the Negative World

Now Wolfe refers to Aaron Renn’s “story of American secularization,” which apparently has three stages: “The Positive World (pre-1994), the Neutral World (1994-2014), and the Negative Word (2014 – present).” Renn says that, in today’s “Negative World... Being known as a Christian is a social negative... Christian morality is expressly repudiated... [and] violating the secular moral order brings negative consequences.”

In such a world, the author says, the only options are “Christian nationalism or pagan nationalism.” He explains that “pagan” means “ordered to the celebration of degeneracy, child sacrifice (e.g. abortion), mental illness, and idolatry.” Urging Christians to “assert the godly direction,” he explains that “Neutral World political theology is simply irrelevant to our new world; it is obsolete.” He cites “the prevailing degeneracy and anti-Christian hostility of our time,” including “hostile liberalism, which is what we’re facing now.” Wolfe continues the argument, writing that “the left now effectively excludes conservatives from positions of influence and power. Free speech, openness, and contestability were all means to power for the left, not principles.”  

The author warns not to assume too much of the left, “since their pursuits are likely rooted more in resentment, mental illness, narcissism, and hatred of beauty than in principle. Left-wing politics is the politics of self-harm.” (A moment, please. I have close relatives who consider themselves born-again Christians, and they know I am a “lefty.” Do they think these things of me?) Interestingly, Wolfe says that “The left-right fights in popular media give the appearance  of wide disagreement but this is a show, an illusion... Christian nationalism does not deny the good of viewpoint diversity... [but] the range and type of diversity allowed is a matter of prudence and collective experience.” He says he affirms freedom of speech as long as it is “bounded prudently such that public discourse conduces to what is good.”

“Specific Groups”

Now Wolfe identifies specific groups within society and comments on each, beginning with “heretics.” He asserts that “civil action against heretics is justified in principle but the practice of it requires considerable discernment, care, gentleness, and prudence.” Non-Christians, he explains, “actively proselytize their non-Christian religion” and are “not technically heretics.” They are subject to the same punishments of heretics “to suppress or eliminate any influence they may have upon Christian society” (but not to punish them). A Christian commonwealth, he says, “must guarantee justice and secure natural rights. But this does not entail equal participation, status, and standing in political, social, and cultural institutions. Only Christians can be expected to take an interest in conserving the explicit Christian character and ends... of society... For example, were a public school to put on a Christmas play, non-Christians might be exempted by request though not necessarily granted a publicly funded alternative.” (Just to be clear: We’re talking about public funding for a Christian event in a public school, with no non-Christian alternative.)  

Another group, “dissenting Christians,” should not be punished; they simply have “erroneous opinions... Wide toleration is desirable... for it displays... that differing brethren can recognize their mutual union with Christ and live together in peace.” Wolfe advocates “granting religious liberty to all orthodox Christians,” as it would “effectively end dissension... and create a sort of pan-Protestant civil society. This is precisely what I hope for... in North America.” 

And then we have the “conforming Christians.” According to Mr. Wolfe, “Magistrates can require that everyone who is baptized will attend [worship], even those who are unconfirmed by the church and not allowed to participate in the Supper.” Finally he concludes his discussion of these “groups” with this: “The American political tradition... in its early era, is consistent with and a resource for an American nationalist project today.”

“Now I Turn to My Country”

In his chapter on “The Foundation of American Freedom: Anglo-Protestant Experience,” Wolfe says, “Now I turn to my country... Does the American political tradition permit a Christian self-conception, Christian governments, and church establishments?” (I am very interested in his exploration of those questions.) He contends that, “for most of United States history Americans thought of themselves as a Christian people.” His intent in this chapter? “I want to show that the American political tradition can support Christian nationalism and provide resources for an American Christian nationalist project.”  

His first argument is that “the American political tradition... is based in Protestantism.” The author explains: “Though the American founding fathers were unanimous in supporting religious toleration, their unanimity on the government’s role in religion ended there. There were two seemingly contradictory views... establishment or non-establishment.” He explains: “Establishment typically referred to ‘plural establishment’ in which all (or property-owners only) pay taxes that support the denomination of each person’s choosing... [vs.] the minority position strict separation by non-establishment (no public support for any denomination). The minority position has received the most attention in scholarship.”

“The American tradition of religious liberty,” Wolfe asserts, “reflects a...particularity arising from a people applying universal principles for themselves over time.” Discussing “religious liberty in the founding era,” the author claims that “We see that the founders assumed distinctively Protestant principles,” and “The founders were unanimous in the belief that religion is necessary for civic morals and public happiness.” He points out that “the minority view on religious liberty – those who wanted to disassociate civil government entirely from religion... argued that religious establishment is bad for religion and that strict separation is good for it.” He says, however, that the evidence shows that “most of the founders... believed that religion had an essential role in political order.” He quotes the “consensus” as offered by John Witherspoon: “... to promote true religion is the best and most effectual way of making a virtuous and regular people.”

Wolfe continues: “Some founders believed that strict separation best promoted religion; many (or most) disagreed.” He says Witherspoon, along with Cotton Mather, agreed that “‘there is a good deal of reason to make public provision for the worship of God’”; the author adds that “The assumption here is that most people are either unwilling or unable to fund religious instruction; and since religion is necessary for civic morals, it follows that government can and should provide public funding for Christian ministry.” 

The author refers now to the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, which “grants toleration for all to worship ‘in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience... every denomination of Christians... shall be equally under the protection of the law.’” Wolfe concludes that “these are just a handful of innumerable examples of classic Protestant premises used in founding-era documents on religious liberty.”

Next the author turns to John Locke, who apparently argued in “A Letter Concerning Toleration: the civil magistrate is not required to tolerate ‘opinions contrary to human society, or to those moral rules which are necessary to the preservation of civil society.’ Neither atheists nor Roman Catholics sufficiently passed these requirements, according to Locke.”

Did the Constitution Get it Wrong?

And what of the First Amendment? Wolfe explores the development of this amendment, which begins with the words: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” He says “the concern is not over establishment itself but establishment at the federal level... religion should be left to the states.” He explains that Anti-Federalists did not object to religious establishment per se. “They feared that Congress, under the guise of national welfare, would seize control over what rightly belonged to the states... The motivating principle... was federalism... not anti-establishment. Given religious diversity between the states, the promotion and regulation of religion was best left to the states.” 

Wolfe does argue that “the framers should have included explicit Christian language in the Constitution.” Why? “The American people in the founding era and early American republic were Protestant Christians... the absence of Christianity from America’s constituting documents diverges from American principles; it did not establish an American secularist principle of civil government.” He mentions a 19th-century attempt to “correct the mistake of omission.”

He concludes this chapter (and moves to the epilogue) with these words: “Among the founders, all believed that a religious people were necessary for civic morals, public happiness, and effective government, and most (if not all) thought that Christianity provided something distinctive in this regard... As a resource for Christian nationalism, this development is suitable only for a people whose core is Protestant,” he concedes. “We cannot expect non-Protestants to receive an Anglo-Protestant tradition... Let’s claim and assert what is ours and utilize it to renew our land.”

The Left vs. the Straight White Male

“Now what?” So begins the epilogue to this tome. The author asks, “How do we recover Christian nationhood?” He asserts that “The Christian nationalist project is not ‘conservative’... our institutions are not only captured by the left; they have become fundamentally oriented against us. The conservative cannot fathom this. He is an institution man, the sort who lined up against Donald Trump to ‘protect the institutions.’” He continues, “The left in America are now the true conservatives. This isn’t a compliment but a statement of fact. The institutions are theirs and they now conserve them... In our world today, conserving and progressing are not opposites; they are complementary.” 

And again, “Now what?” He says, “The solution is renewal, not conservation. What we need is... the Great Renewal.” Why? “The narrative of America as embodied in our institutions today is relentlessly hostile to Old America. That means that 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.”

Wolfe asks his reader, “What was the reward for your blood, sweat and tears? To be called ‘racists’ by the Squad... and to be passed over by the incompetent and neurotic.” Then, referring to his experience in the military during “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the author says that “Advancement in diversity and inclusion is the American story. Why not allow homosexuals to serve openly? To be a good American – committed to one’s national story – one has to be progressively inclusive. This rhetoric has worked time and time again, and it will work again.”

He continues: “The United States military provides a good example of how conservatives are duped into fighting for causes that harm them.” He cites “the rainbow flag in Kabul and NGOs advocating for transgender rights and gender studies programs... 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. Politicians have made the US military the most exploitative institution in the United States.” Wow! He is really angry at this point. But there’s more. After quoting George W. Bush, the author asserts that our service members have “... defended the beliefs of New America – feminism, homosexuality, gender fluidity, secularism, porn, and base entertainment... The ‘American way of life,’ which the military fights for today, 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 saying over and over again ‘diversity is our strength.’” And finally, “It is returning to your homeland... to recite enforced speech by the mentally ill, resentful, and malicious.”

GAE: The Globalist American Empire

I confess: This GAE material was all new to me. But it seems important to Mr. Wolfe, so I want to share it. This is, in fact, the current status of the US military, he tells us. “... centered in Washington, DC,... to advance modern liberal ideology across the globe. All Western nations... advance international liberalism. Those who oppose the GAE,” he predicts, “will be deemed ‘right-wing extremists’ and marked for elimination.” He continues: “The American ruling class is an occupying force. The rulers are... cosmopolitans or ‘nowheres’ ... liberal internationalists. The intent... is to impose modern liberal norms upon Americans, particularly sexual deviancy.” 

Wolfe asks, “Why is the GAE so interested in kids?” His answer: “They want child warriors. Kids with gender confusion is to the GAE what a child with an AK47 is to third-world warlords. They fight their battles and lose their souls, but they also pledge life-long loyalty... It is a soft revolution, for it appears to exist by consent... the revolutionaries... control America’s institutions and the information apparatus. They can... quickly shift the people to the new ‘current thing.’” 

The author now appears to me to be riled up and angry. He refers to “the Obergefell decision, which forced homosexual marriage on all states... an imperial imposition. So too was the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which opened the floodgates of non-Western immigration into the United States.” (I can’t help but think of Wolfe’s repeated reference to “particularities” and the clear message that immigrants have all the wrong ones.) He roars on: “... criminals run rampant through cities and neighborhoods... They teach critical race theory and white self-hatred... They encourage gender ideology and the ‘exploration’ of one’s gender identity... imposing an unwelcome ideology on the people.” 

Whew! We’re at the final 35 pages of the book now, and the author is wound up and emotional like never revealed in earlier chapters. He cites the Russia-Ukraine war, noting the “intense anti-Russia propaganda in the West and how quickly the entire Western world turned their vitriolic ire away from the unvaccinated to the Russians.” (I note to myself – speaking of “the unvaccinated” – that this book was published a few years before the current measles outbreak – and before the embarrassing 2025 Oval Office altercation between Trump/Vance and Zelensky.) But Wolfe goes on to suggest that the GAE “will see no difference between Putin’s Russia and any Christian nationalist movement... They see us as regressive and authoritarian.” Continuing his diatribe against those Americans who supported a Russia oil embargo and wanted to punish Putin, he claims that they “will treat us like Putin, the Taliban, and perhaps worse.” (I am shocked. This is not what I expected to read.)

The author now describes “the bulk of late-modern Western man... He lives vicariously... remaining fat and passive on the sofa and tweeting...” (Is he talking about Donald Trump???) Wolfe says modern man project his need for “confident action upon an imagined reality supplied to him by the regime... It is only a matter of time before Christian nationalists become the villains in the next imagined reality... Modern life drives mankind to passivity... pursuing higher life is too risky and achieving dominion is too burdensome.” (His tone is so hate-filled! I’m glad I know he’s not referring to me, because I’m merely a lowly woman, so I don’t even count.”

The author continues his description of modern man: “He can consume and tweet, consume and tweet, consume and tweet.” (Help me here: Is he describing Donald Trump?) He says “Everyone is caught up in the latest target of GAE passion... And Christian nationalism will eventually be part of that drama... Modern life deadens the will... we’re bored, barely alive... This is our modern nihilism, the ‘death of God’ at work.” (I am so lost.) But then the author seems to see hope on the horizon: “The will for what is ours in Christ is the true revolt against the modern world. Let us passionately assert that Christian nationalism is the recovery of a Christian megalothymia – a collective will for Christian dominion in the world.” (I had to look that word up: megalothymia refers to the need to feel superior to others. I have never encountered so much new vocabulary in one book!)

Gynocracy

Another new word! I had never heard of this before. I was mentally pronouncing it “gin-o-cracy” – completely stymied. It wasn’t until I realized it is “gine-o-cracy that I saw that it’s about females! Oh, and it ain’t good! Here’s how the section opens: “We live under a gynocracy – a rule by women... the governing virtues of America are feminine vices, associated with certain feminine virtues, such as empathy, fairness, and equality... risk-aversion, and strict rules of conduct that disincentivize masculine, competitive expression.” As for men, they are “naturally animated by rugged individualism... capable of agnostic self-organization that often disregards or demotes women... In the end, men can succeed only if they are effeminate or female-adjacent... defer to women at every turn...” (OMG!)

He continues: “Women are, by their nature, more personally dependent on others than men in terms of protection and security, mainly because of their size and because they are vulnerable when bearing children... the feminine natural instinct for third-party power makes women prone, especially when having institutional power, to subject everything to rules and credentials that equalize the sexes and even favor women... Thus gynocracy pathologizes masculinity, making ‘successful’ men essentially panderers to women and subjected to processes that hinder their ability to succeed in ways most natural to men... The modern state makes possible a woman’s independence and equality in society. The price for it is pathologizing masculinity.” Pardon me for a moment; I have to catch my breath. I am a woman.

And yet there is more: “Untethered empathy in society leads to policies that harm women and indeed everyone. The most obvious is transgendered ‘girls’ in girls’ sports.” (Ah! Here we go.) “Urbanite white women vote for Democrats... Urban Democrats... want to ‘defund the police.’” (I can’t help but recall, when I was running for re-election to City Council, and some out-of-state PAC printed up thousands of postcards with my picture on, saying “Lynn Gerlach voted to defund the police.” Not only had I not voted on it – nobody had! There wasn’t a person in Green Bay who had any notion of defunding our police, and certainly not anyone on City Council. It had never been mentioned! It’s a clever trigger phrase though, and I guess anyone can say it. Here’s proof.)

Continuing his argument about the dangers of rule by women, Wolfe asserts that “Urban areas are thus full of unchecked crime... Empathy... is easily exploited... Take the bizarre celebration of obesity today. It makes little sense apart from unconstrained feminine empathy.” (Women celebrate obesity?! I am so lost.) He continues: “Or what about the hoards [sic] of mainly single, able-bodied men from patriarchal nations who have migrated to Western borders? The West lets them all in and then has to conceal the spike in sexual assaults... Consider also child transgenderism, which seems to be facilitated in large part by over-empathetic and sometimes deranged mothers.” I wish he’d tell us how he really feels about women!

But there’s more! “The most insane and damaging sociological trends of our modern society are female-driven. Gynocracy is self-destructive and breeds social disorder. Feminine virtues... operate for good only when complemented with masculine leadership... For decades, women have sought equality in public discourse...” (Imagine!) “The fear is that women will take disagreement personally and frame the disagreement as an oppressor silencing the oppressed.” (Well, not if they’re not oppressed, right? What am I missing?!) “As academic institutions cater to and graduate more and more women, credentialism is on the rise... institution-conferred markers that position them above those who lack the title... And then there is ‘tone’ in one’s criticism. The tone of ‘critical’ reviews of works written by women have to treat the author as if she were royalty or an infallible goddess.” (I’m telling you, folks: I couldn’t make this stuff up!)

“A masculine society is preferred because it harmonizes the individual and hierarchy for the common good.” (And I suppose it keeps women where they belong: in the kitchen and the bedroom.) Wolfe then describes “a society whose principal institutions embody masculine virtues, and the feminine virtues operate through them... the pursuit of gender equality will produce more harm than good... Christian nationalists must affirm and restore gender hierarchy...The rise of Christian nationalism necessitates the fall of gynocracy.” (I’m trying to recall whether I’ve ever before felt actually hated by an author.)

Universalism

The author explains another quirk of “modern life.” He says “we have been so conditioned to affirm what we feel to be good that that feeling determines for us what is true... We can be led by society to affirm subjectively what is objectively false... Christian nationalists hold beliefs that run contrary to the prevailing norms of Western society... We might feel, for example, that it is wrong for public space to be exclusively Christian, but it still ought to be.” (So, there!) Turning now to “the ruling class” (whatever he perceives that to be), Wolfe advises, “Free yourself from their enslavement... There is not credibility we can establish with them. Unavoidably, we are threats to their regime... the secularist regime. They are enemies of the church and, as such, enemies of the human race.” (Egad!) 

“Non-Western peoples... view other ethnic-groups not in terms of common humanity... but in terms of ethnicity – in terms of ethnic in-group/out-group... Japan is for the Japanese. The same policy in any Western country would horrify Western elites because it violates their universalistic frame... Non-Westerners... are right.... we should join the Majority World... Western ethnicities should view the world more through an ethnic frame... become more exclusive and ethnic-focused.”

Dominion

“Masculinity makes possible the necessary competencies for leading the household to exercise dominion in this world. Indeed, given the nature of the mission, masculine virtues are principal and feminine virtues are ancillary.” (I cannot write the thought that just popped into my head. Sorry.) He laments that, in modern society, “something important for living well has been lost as a result, as we’ve lost the ability to make and fix things for ourselves and to intimately bring something from the soil to the table... practices that attune one to the natural world.” (I certainly wouldn’t argue that point.) He continues: “I expect that the most committed Christian nationalists will be farmers, homesteaders, and ranchers... They understand from experience that the good of this world... [will come] from actively asserting one’s will in the world and contending for good.”

Wolfe observes that, “we do not have productive property. Everything is designed for physical comfort, ease, and convenience... But let us consider how suburbia shapes our relationship to dominion. The suburbs are well-ordered, but...modern technique... renders our wills fat and dependent... We no longer know what it takes to tame the wild. We no longer have the competencies, or even the desire, to stake a claim for ourselves and contend for it... no spirit to inscribe one’s will into a piece of dirt, to stand at its boundaries and with resolve say mine to both fellow man and the wild... Our dominion over nature requires the imposition of human will upon wilderness... dominion necessitates masculine virtues... However, in the modern world... the masculine virtues don’t have an outlet.”

He expresses some hope, however. “The growing homesteading movement in the US... offers the opportunity to domesticate... it requires imposing one’s will on a stubborn, sometimes violent wilderness... we ought to think of ways to experience ‘nature’ in a dominion-oriented way.”

With that, Mr. Wolfe turns to his own sons, saying, “What I care most about is their future independence and autonomy – not from me but from liberal totalization. The bureaucratized workforce is increasingly ruled by social justice advocates who enforce rules of belief and behavior that force people to assert both moral absurdities and self-repudiation... If you are a white, heterosexual, cis-gendered male, then the world will not offer you any favors.” He explains that career advancement will come from “praising and pandering to your inferiors who rule over you.” He suggests the fate of a military general stuck with “the order of some ditsy and lecturing congresswoman,” and having to oversee “a program to integrate transgenderism into the military.”

The author advises, as an alternative, that “young people should find a path that maximizes their independence, especially from HR departments, DEI standards, woke administrators, government mandates, etc.” He says “We should praise independence more than college degrees,” and one should have “skills and backups for autonomy... American parents should no longer expect their children to leave the house after graduating high school... Staying home into one’s twenties provides a safe, secure place to chart a path for independence.”

And then back to the battle of the sexes: “Masculinity provides a necessary ingredient for natural hierarchy formation: agonism.” (Time out. I had to look this one up too. It means that social and political conflict are natural and constructive.) He continues: “Individualism and hierarchy are opposites only in a feminized society... We work for woke corporations that hate you and that force you to adopt an ideology of self-loathing and self-incrimination. Your only self-worth is grounded in the worth you ascribe to other people’s delusions about themselves.” He advises, “Resist the blobbing and softness of modern manhood... reject the talk of ‘universal dignity’ ... cultivate martial virtues.”

And now some advice...

“Christian households in America should form local networks of production and exchange... an anti-fragile counterculture and countermarket of personal connections and mutual service... Men must take the lead.” He concedes that the need for connection is good. “It starts with families staying put and committing themselves to a place for good. Truly rooted people...” Then he explains that “Christian nationalism is a means, not an end in itself.” He advises that “We have to do better. Pursue your potential. Lift weights, eat right, and lose the dad bod.” (I can’t help but wonder how he would feel about me if he knew that I, a little woman, lift weights and eat right.) He goes on: “We ought to be men of power and endurance... If our opponents want to be fat, have low testosterone, and chug vegetable oil, let them. It won’t be us.” (I’m almost afraid to read on.) 

It's not about numbers, Wolfe explains. “The ‘have more babies; save the world’ argument needs to go away. I understand the idea... Producing numbers will not make a people.” And read old books! “... old books are far less harmful than practically any channel on television and most school curricula.”

Finally, Stephen Wolfe proclaims, “America is not lost.” He says, “In the United States, the civil power of state governors is not derived from the federal government but comes immediately from God... State governors are deputies of God.” They “must recall their duties to God and fight against injustices of the federal government.” And, again, “America is not lost. It is better to say that the United States, as a whole, is lost; the GAE has captured it. But parts of America are certainly not lost. Hundreds of counties in the United States have a majority of conservative Christians, as do several states... organize and support Christian political visions for towns, counties, and states...Christian nationalism can and should look different in different place, for all principles are applied according to the concrete situation.”

And he closes: “We must reject the idea that American liberty is universal and merely human. It is particularand American. Let us embrace it as ours... working in the holiness of Christ for the great renewal of our country.”

Amen. But, of course, my work has just begun. Next I will read Sarah Posner’s Unholy: How white Christian nationalists powered the Trump presidency, and the devastating legacy they left behind. Posner’s book was actually published a year before Stephen Wolfe’s. So, now I’ll read the other perspective, and then I’ll go back to all the good material I’d Googled so long ago and share that with you – including the fascinating information about the pope that I’ve been promising you. So, a few more weeks’ work, and two more installments, and then you and I might have a pretty good understanding of White Christian Nationalism.