Douglas Wilson has written on his website, Blog and Mablog, answering a series of questions about Christian Nationalism. In answer to the question, “What is Christian Nationalism”, Wilson writes:
“Christian Nationalism is the view that secularism is a hollow construct, now plainly revealed to be bankrupt. Additionally, CN is the belief that human societies require a transcendent anchor to hold everything together, and that this transcendent anchor should be the true and living God, and not a placeholder idol.”[1]
As well as advocating for a form of Christian Nationalism himself in his book “Mere Christendom” Wilson has also published Stephen Wolfe’s book “In Defence of Christian Nationalim” through Canon Press. Wilson acknowledges that there are differences between him and Wolfe on some aspects of Christian Nationalism but explaisn his reasons for publishing it as follows:
“ Stephen’s book is an important scholarly work that helped to precipitate a conversation that really needed to occur. And in that respect, it was a great success. I enjoyed reading it very much, and profited from it. My book is not addressing precisely the same issues, but I would regard the two books as occupying a similar space. There are no glaring contradictions between the books, although there are some differences. We do have some divergent assumptions at the tectonic plate levels, differences which result in some variations on the surface—Stephen is a Thomist and I am not, he is operating directly out of a tradition of political theology and I am more of a biblicist, and so on. Canon Press practices an evangelical ecumenicism on such issues. But it is worth pointing out that my general equity theonomy and the Reformed common law tradition have much in common, and differ largely in time and stage of development. The Reformed common law tradition is general equity theonomy after six centuries of maturation.
So if I sat in the back row with all my convictions, and watched Stephen and his minions take over and obtain all that they wanted, from my perspective this would be way better than what we are dealing with now. And I also think Stephen would feel the same if those positions were reversed.
My thesis is that the contemporary form of Christian Nationalism draws on three stands of thinking or movements, New Apostolic Reformation/Dominionism, Federal Vision and political nationalism. I want to focus here in the second strand, Federal Vision. Douglas Wilson has been a significant player in that movement and so that is why it makes sense to focus on his position regarding Christian Nationalism so it makes sense to focus on what he has to say. First of all though we need to spend a bit of time defining and describing the Federal Vision.
Like the idea of Christian Nationalism itself, and indeed both the Reformed Theological and Charismatic traditions, there is a diversity as well as a unity within Federal Visionism. Indeed, some who have long been associated with the movement seem to have disagreed sharply with one another and even, including in Wilson’s case disavowed the term altogether. However, we will see as we delve a bit deeper that whilst Wilson may have disowned the label, he has not renounced the associated positions that gave rise to the term.
What do we mean by Federal Vision?
I thought it would be helpful to talk a bit more about Federal Vision as a thought/movement. This will help to explain the concerns that I and others have about its potential ongoing influence. It’s worth noting that there are numerous people that have been identified under the label. This can make it a little complex because there are a diversity of views among them.
Another complication is that there are a number of theological and ethical positions that have become particularly associated with Federal Vision thinking that are not in themselves core Federal Vision ideas and it is possible to hold them without being a Federal Visionist. Some will however be held consistently across the spectrum and some views are perhaps unique to specific people. For example, Douglas Wilson has come under fire for the position he has taken on the history of the slave trade and its abolition. As far as I’m aware, these views are unique to him.
To complicate things further, some of those who have been closely associated with the Federal Vision label have since disavowed it, most notably, Douglas Wilson.[2] However, whilst he has dropped the label and talks about different directions of travel, he is also insistent that he hasn’t changed his core beliefs. When talking about Federal Vision, we perhaps want to talk about people who have shared a specific agenda in common which has led to some shared doctrine and shared practices.
In terms of a timeline, a key date was 2002 when papers were presented at the Auburn Avenue Pastors Conference (Federal Vision is sometimes referred to as Auburn Avenue Theology). The word Federal is from the Latin Fides and so the controversy was and is to do with covenant theology. In other words, on what basis does God have a covenant with his people. Those involved believed that they were restating a robust version of reformed theology.[3]
Key people that have been involved in some way include Douglas Wilson, John Barach, Steve Wilkins and Steve Schlissel who were involved in the conference. A number of others later identified with Federal Vision theology including Peter Leithart, James Jordan and others. There are a few things that seem to be at the heart of the thinking that you are likely to see in common across the board.
Here is one attempt at a summary:
“Federal Vision proponents tended to focus on the objectivity of the covenant of grace, downplay the distinction between law and gospel, conflate the visible church and the invisible church, assert presumptive regeneration or baptismal regeneration, embrace a functional sacramentalism, affirm paedocommunion, deny the covenant of works, reject the imputation of Christ’s active obedience, and promote the idea of a final justification based on Spirit-wrought good works.” [4]
Let’s flesh the key points out a bit. The emphasis on objectivity in relation to the God’s covenant brings two things together. First, the belief that covenant signs (baptism and communion) actually do something, they have a real objective effect. They are not just outer symbols of what we hope has happened/will happen/is happening. They are having a genuine effect on the person.
Second, this meets with paedobaptist/presbyterian interpretations of Acts 2, where Peter talks about the promise being for you and your children. Many paedobaptists have over the years taken this as a promise that we can have a high confidence that our children will be saved. Federal Vision thinking pushed this further. If God objectively promises that our children along with us are in the covenant and if baptism actually does something, then we must presume that if and when we baptise our children, this includes them fully into the Covenant.
At times, some paedobaptists have distinguished out the idea that we can presume children to be elect from presumption that they are regenerate. Children are therefore treated as to some extent being under the benefits and blessings of God’s covenant. Federal Vision insists that if they are in the covenant, then they are surely full recipients of all covenant blessings and carry all the responsibilities too. This means that they are treated as regenerate and so also expected to share in the covenant meal, the Lord’s Supper (this is referred to as paedo-communion).[5]
To those of us from a baptistic persuasion, this is perhaps the most central and obvious issue. Indeed, I am convinced that this is foundational to other aspects of Federal Vision thinking. However, it is not the only element of core thinking. As the quote above observes, Federal Vision downplays the distinction between law and Gospel. Now, Reformed Theology as opposed to Lutheran Protestant thinking would generally be cautious about over distinguishing the two. We believe that there was grace in the Law and that there is a degree of continuity between the old and new covenants so that the Law is fulfilled in Christ not abolished by him. However, Federal Vision thinking has tended to align with New Perspective on Paul thinking concerning justification and would emphasise faith as itself a form of obedience so that it is still our obedience that leads to our justification.
Another factor was that proponents embraced a form of post-millennialism. There are three primary views concerning eschatology relating to Revelation 20:1-6 which refers to a 1000 year reign of Christ
- Premillennialism assumes a literal 1000 year reign and places this at the end of history. So, the Church will be raptured, Christ will reign for 1000 years and then we will see the final defeat of Satan, judgement and the new creation.
- Postmillennialism tends to assume that the 1000 years is figurative for a long period of history but believes that Christ’s return will be after (post) this period of time which is when we will see Christ’s reign on earth through his church.
- Amillennialism believes that the number is figurative and that rather than there being a specific period of time before or after Christ’s return when we will see his triumphant reign, we should expect all of history to include both evidence of his increasingly reign and of increasing darkness, and resistance to Christ. The two things happening in tandem.
The approach to postmillennialism we’ve seen associated with Federal Vision therefore presumes that as Christianity has greater influence, nations will be discipled, becoming Christian nations and therefore having Christian laws and constitutions. What will these laws/constitutions be? Well, Federal Visionists are likely to point us towards the Law of Moses, although there will be some variation in terms of how they approach it and some reject what might be seen as a strict theonomism with the Ten Commandments and Toral directly applied across the Church today. Rather, Torah is seen as setting out principles to be applied now.
Now, whilst it is possible to hold one or other of the above positions outside and independent of Federal Visionism, it is worth making three observations here. First, that the Federal Vision really brings these three strands together and so the implications for theology, culture and ethics are founded upon the unified whole. Second, that whilst people may be picking up on just one strand of the thinking and indeed, whilst it is possible to arrive at those individual conclusions independent of Federal Vision, it has been Federal Vision proponents who have played a major role in popularising those ways of thinking, talking and acting.
The third thing to say is that the Federal Vision is not just about theological or cultural content but is about methodology too. This is best understood by reference to an article my friend Steve Kneale wrote here about “maximalism.” This approach when applied to exegesis and hermeneutics encourages us to take typology maximally. By typology, we mean that we see in events and figures, types that point prophetically to Christ. Maximal typology invites us to assume wordplay at all times and every level (hence maximally). So for example, if you see the word “bread” in one Bible passage and find it again in another, then there must be a connection.
Now on one level, this isn’t that crazy and we certainly might want to spend more time looking closely at the way the whole Bible holds together in its finer detail. However, the problem comes when in effect, this approach becomes untethered. Hence my concern when it is presented in terms of giving the benefit of the doubt and seeing where the flow takes us. This approach invites us to suspend critical judgement and is seen not just in exegesis but across the range as we look at theology and culture too.
Federal Vision then is not just about what we think, say, do but about how we think, say and do. It’s not just the conclusions but how we arrive at them.
This hopefully gives a bit more of a flavour for what Federal Vision is. Now at this stage, I suspect that many will be still wondering why I’m particularly exercised by this issue. Part of my response to that question will require us to do some more work on the specific examples. We will return to them. However, at this stage I think it is worth stating that there are things about the beast, taken as a whole which make it particularly complex, challenging and dare I say it slippery.
Because it is not so simple as dealing with a couple of odd balls and their obviously created cult, what I would suggest we see is a way of thinking and specific thought that can get its tentacles in all over the place, often subtly and often unnoticed. Because it appears to just be a bit of a minority academic interest, I think it is possible for us to miss it at the grass roots, local church level. Thirdly because it is realty about different strands of thought coming together, it is possible for those strands to break off again and get into the life of the church without is spotting what else we may be importing into church as well as the specific issues with that particular doctrine.
The Federal Vision Statement and Christian Nationalism
The 2002, Auburn Avenue conference was followed by a further Federal Vision statement in 2007. The 2007 statement was signed by John Barach (minister, CREC) Randy Booth (minister, CREC) Tim Gallant (minister, CREC) Mark Horne (minister, PCA) Jim Jordan (minister, teacher at large) Peter Leithart (minister, PCA) AD 2007 Rich Lusk (minister, CREC) Jeff Meyers (minister, PCA) Ralph Smith (minister, CREC) Steve Wilkins (minister, PCA) Douglas Wilson (minister, CREC).
There are two significant elements to the statement that touch directly onto Christian Nationalism although I am inclined to think that the whole philosophy underpins the outcomes. Those two specifics start with the idea of post-millennialism. The Statement reads:
As the Waters Cover the Sea. We affirm that God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but rather so that the world through Him would be saved. Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world—He is the Savior of the world. All the nations shall stream to Him, and His resting place shall be glorious. We affirm that prior to the second coming of our Lord Jesus, the earth will be as full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. We deny that eschatological views are to be a test of fellowship between orthodox believers, but at the same time we hold that an orientation of faith with regard to the gospel’s triumph in history is extremely important. We deny that it is wise to imitate Abraham in his exercise of faith while declining to believe the content of what he believed—that through him all the nations of the world would be blessed, and that his descendants would be like the stars in number.[6]
You will notice that with one hand, the statement gives, assuring readers that eschatological views are not a test of orthodoxy before going on to take away with the other hand. Whilst we might argue, that yes, all eschatological views expect the triumph of the Gospel, it is specifically post-millennialism which expects this ultimate triumph to take place “prior to the second coming of our Lord Jesus.”
Now, here is where the propositions of federal vision fit together. Is this expected triumph to take place through evangelism, conversions, revivals and awakenings? Well, those things might play a part. However, if our expectation is that the promises of God are for those who believe and for their physical descendants, then one way in which we expect the world to be filled with God’s knowledge is through Christian fecundity.[7] We can expect Christians to prioritise having children, lots of them, baptising them into the faith and catechizing them.
The other way in which God’s knowledge is expected to fill the earth according to Federal Visionists is through the instruments of the state. Therefore, the Statement commits to Christendom and to Christian states or nations. It says:
The Next Christendom We affirm that Jesus Christ is the King of kings, and the Lord of lords. We believe that the Church cannot be a faithful witness to His authority without calling all nations to submit themselves to Him through baptism, accepting their responsibility to obediently learn all that He has commanded us. We affirm therefore that the Christian faith is a public faith, encompassing every realm of human endeavor. The fulfilment of the Great Commission therefore requires the establishment of a global Christendom. We deny that neutrality is possible in any realm, and this includes the realm of “secular” politics. We believe that the lordship of Jesus Christ has authoritative ramifications for every aspect of human existence, and that growth up into a godly maturity requires us to discover what those ramifications are in order to implement them. Jesus Christ has established a new way of being human, and it is our responsibility to grow up into it. [8]
Notice that it is the nations who “submit themselves…through baptism” which is a little ambiguous. That would however, link with the idea that “disciple the nations” in Matthew 28L19 ff means literally that it is the nations who are discipled, rather than individuals within and from nations.
Christianity is meant to be something expressed publicly with an impact on public life, it is therefore political. Federal Vision is therefore a rejection of secular pluralism with neutrality not possible. Whilst the term “Christian Nationalism” does not appear in the statement, we can see how some of the key ideas were being introduced, 20 years before Stephen Wolfe wrote “In Defence of Christian Nationalism.”
[1] FAQs on Christian Nationalism | Blog & Mablog
[2] Federal Vision No Mas | Blog & Mablog
[6] A Joint Federal Vision Profession
[7] “The ability to produce an abundance of offspring.
Faithroots 