The late Philip Hacking once said that he was an Evangelical Anglican with the emphasis on the Adjective. In other words, the important bit of that was that he was first and foremost an Evangelical and secondly an Anglican, that’s where his loyalties lay. I do wish that many Evangelical Anglicans now would get that point! However, it also raises questions and lessons for other contexts.
Where do Christian Nationalists put the emphasis? Well, as we have observed previously, the fullest treatment of Christian Nationalism from one of its advocates comes in Stephen Wolfe’s book, The Case for Christian Nationalism. In the book, Wolfe writes:
“Christian nationalism is nationalism modified by Christianity. My definition of Christian nationalism is a Christianized form of nationalism or, put differently, a species of nationalism. Thus, I treat nationalism as a genus, meaning that all that is essential to generic nationalism is true of Christian nationalism.”[1]
In other words, for Wolfe, the emphasis is on the noun. The priority is nationalism with the expectation that it will be shaped in some form by Christianity. It will be worth our while taking some time to think through exactly how Wolfe and others expect nationalism to be shaped by Christianity. However, it is also worth remembering that when two things come into contact with each other then both are likely to be shaped in one way or other. Indeed, when you bring Christianity and Nationalism together, you have two competing ideologies. The question is which will win out, which will submit to and be transformed by the other? Well listen again to what Wolfe has to say: . He says:
“As I’ve stressed, nationalism is firstly concerned with a nation’s good, and the good of any nation is in part found in its particular features. The particularities of a people are those things that could be otherwise; they are not in themselves natural, and so they are not universal. Nor can you separate particularity from the place in which that particularity occurs; the culture is part of the place, as a territorial cultivation. The necessity of particularity leads to the principle of difference, by which peoples derive a right to difference. From this right comes the necessity of exclusion in civil policy.”[2]
In other words, there are ties that bind a nation together as one, that unite it. This is the ethno-cultural factor. Wolfe describes this national unity as a form of “civil fellowship.” This is important because it means that whilst there is something that unites Christians from all nations together, that is trumped by something that is given greater priority. Wolfe says:
“demonstrate this, we should first recognize that fellow Christians, regardless of nationality, are united spiritually, as fellow members of the kingdom of God. This is chiefly a heavenly or eschatological relation, made possible by grace, not nature. The spiritual kingdom, after all, is in essence invisible or yet-to-be-revealed. Thus, all Christians share in the highest good—all being spiritually united to Christ—and thus have a spiritual brotherhood.”[3]
In other words, our spiritual unity is something that we look forward to, it is one of the rewards and blessings of the age to come. However, in this age, here and now we have to be more realistic.
“But this brotherhood—being fit for a heavenly kingdom—is wholly inadequate as to its kind for cooperating to procure the full range of goods necessary for living well in this world. Spiritual brotherhood is a common salvation in Christ, an orientation to heaven, a common interest in the sacred things for eternal life, and spiritual unity in the worship of God. But something as basic as a common language, by which we could cooperate and belong together in the same place, is absent from spiritual brotherhood. Unity in Christ does not entail or provide unity in earthly particulars, which are necessary for living well in this world.”[4]
This has two implications. First of all, it means that whilst Christian nations should offer refuge to persecuted Christians, they have a responsibility to restrict immigration as much as possible. Now, in the current UK debate, we are being told that the concerns about immigration are primarily about religious protection. The insistence is that we need to guard against Isalm. However, Wolfe is explicitly clear that for Christian Nationalism to work, even immigration from supposedly Christian contexts must be prevented. He says:
My view is that the principle of exclusion, which is necessary for a people’s complete good, morally permits a Christian nation to deny immigration to Christian foreigners. Christian nations are not required to exclude them, but they can in principle.[5]
Immigration, even Christian immigration is a danger to the nation:
“A self-confident Christian nation will be hospitable to its spiritual brothers and sisters, but they will not be self-destructive or easily manipulated. No Christian nation is obligated to do what will destroy itself or undermine its long-term ability to provide the complete good to its people.[6]
So that:
The best way a Christian nation can help another Christian nation is by aiding it in flourishing as a people in their own place. It is not by importing that people. Just as families help families while maintaining healthy separation, nations ought to help other nations while maintaining separation.[7]
Moreover, this belief has implications for the local church so that Wolfe argues:
Indeed, 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. Spiritual unity is inadequate for formal ecclesial unity. People do not suddenly speak some Gospel language and then assume a Gospel culture. The people’s way of life permeates the visible church, and it serves as an ancillary feature that makes possible the administration of sacred things (e.g., preaching in the vernacular). The administration of the Word and Sacraments require, at a bare minimum, a common language; and church fellowship requires at least a core culture serving as the cultural norm for social relations.”[8]
Where a society finds itself multicultural due to high immigration, from Wolfe’s perspective, this multiculturalism cannot be brought into the church. He writes:
Culturally distinct groups of Christians could, of course, start their own churches, and this would solve one problem.”[9]
That, however, does not for him solve the problem of multiculturalism in terms of wider society. But, let it sink in. Wolfe’s Christian Nationalism, or rather, Wolfe’s Nationalism, for it is a grievous slander to suggest that there is anything Christian about it at all (and notably he can offer no Biblical warrant for his assertions), insists that fellow brothers and sisters should be excluded from a local church, purely and simply because of their ethnicity. This is poisonous, blasphemous false teaching.
Now, I think that it is right that we take a charitable view of the motives and positions of those choosing to use the Christian Nationalism label. It is possible that they have not read Wolfe’s book or they got lost in the avalanche of wordiness, that they missed what he was saying. I know that they have tried to insist to me that Christian Nationalism isn’t what I think it is, that I’ve misunderstood it and that I need to go and read the arguments and definitions of those who own the name Christian Nationalist. Well, as it happens, I had done that already.
What I’m hoping by spelling it out here, from the horses mouth is that those who may have been naively and mistakenly advocating for Christian Nationalism might be able to see exactly what the movement is that they have got themselves signed up for. However, now, there is no excuse. It is time for those who have got caught up in this by mistake to recognise exactly what it is they are both going along with and attempting to draw others into. It is time for them to repent. It will be as simple as this. They should state explicitly that they disagree with Wolfe, that he is wrong and that it was wrong for them, even in ignorance to promote this wicked false teaching. They need to withdraw all teaching materials and publications that promotes it.[10]
I also hope that Christian leaders who have stayed silent so far, hoping it wasn’t as bad as suggested and attempting to stay neutral will now grasp exactly how serious this is and begin to speak up clearly and passionately for the Gospel of Christ and against this idolatry that has been allowed to infiltrate into the church.
[1] Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 10). Canon Press. Kindle Edition.
[2] Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 199). Canon Press. Kindle Edition.
[3] Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 199). Canon Press. Kindle Edition.
[4] Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (pp. 199-200). Canon Press. Kindle Edition.
[5] Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 199). Canon Press. Kindle Edition.
[6] Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 203). Canon Press. Kindle Edition.
[7] Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 204). Canon Press. Kindle Edition.
[8] Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 200). Canon Press. Kindle Edition.
[9] Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 200). Canon Press. Kindle Edition.
[10] Scripture is clear that sins committed in ignorance are still sin.
Faithroots 