As mentioned previously, there is a diversity to Federal Vision with differences between key proponents, just as you might identify differences among the early reformers, Calvin, Zwingli and Luther disagreeing on the nature of the sacraments among other things. Som have talked in terms of a Federal Vision, dark and a Federal Vision, light. Take for example, this quote from Stephen Wellum on the Gospel Coalition website.
“After 2012, the direction of the Federal Vision movement seemed to fragment further and go in different directions. On the one hand, when Peter Leithart departed from Moscow, Idaho, to create the Theopolis Institute in Birmingham, Alabama (with James Jordan), “Federal Vision Dark” became more “Reformational catholic” in emphasis. In 2016, Leithart published The End of Protestantism calling for more unity within the larger church, including Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and mainline Protestants. On the other hand, by the end of 2013, Doug Wilson wrote Against the Church, calling people back to a more traditional covenant theology, and by 2017, he stopped identifying with the label, “Federal Vision,” as he became more critical of those he had earlier identified with, within the movement. Recently, Wilson has strongly affirmed the imputation of Christ’s active obedience in our justification, and the Reformed understanding of justification and sanctification, while still strongly stressing what he thinks is crucial to covenant theology, namely, the objectivity of the covenant.[1]
Leithart and Wilson have had their strong disagreements. Leithart has also critiqued Stephen Wolfe’s position. So, it is important to not just look at what Douglas Wilson is saying to understand the Federal Vision roots of Christian Nationalism. We need to look at what the likes of Leithart have been saying as well.
In his book, Against Christianity, Peter Leithart critiques the modern social construct of Christianity. He offers a counter vision for what it means to be the Church.
“The church is not a people united by ideas, ideas which go collectively under the name, Christianity…. Christian community by the same token is not an extra layer on social life. The church is not a club for religious people.”[2]
Instead, Leithart argues that “The Church is a way of living together before God, a new way of being human together.”[3] What this means is understood by words like “fellowship” and also the word normally translated as church, ecclesia.
“In the Greek world, ekklesia referred to the assembly of citizens of the polis…In short, the Church presented herself not as another “sect” or cult that existed under the umbrella of the polis, she was an alternative governing body for the city and the beginning of a new city.”[4]
Here we see alignment with Wilson’s perspective and we see the roots for recent Christian Nationalist understanding of the church or ecclesia as a political assembly. The church is political, not just in the sense that Biblical beliefs have an impact on how we live, on individual policies such as abortion, euthanasia and so on but rather that the church is claiming to rival the civic authorities of this world. There is an eschatological question here as well. Christians would agree generally with the statement that the church offers the beginnings of “a new city.” We look forward to the realisation of the new Jerusalem. However, a-millenialists and pre-millenialists, that city is a future reality in terms of its full realisation. Post-millenialists however see its realisation in this world, prior to Christ’s return. Leithart, is a post-millenialist. His position therefore, like Wilson’s and Zwingli’s tends towards Erastianism. The aim of the church is to become the city, or the state.
Therefore, whilst The Church is “not of this world” and exists separately, providing a counter culture, it is not meant to settle for this.[5]
“She has been given the subversive mission of converting whatever culture she finds herself in. She works to the end that her language, her rites, and her way of life may become formative for an entire society.” [6]
Leithart therefore favours an attempt to revive Christendom. This is not because the West as it currently looks is Christendom, nor is it because Christendom and Constantine were perfect. In that sense, he follows Wilson, or maybe Wilson follows him in arguing for a Christendom 2.0. [7] He sets the exam question as follows:
“The issue is whether the hope of forming Christian culture in the wider society is inherent to the Church’s mission, or a deviation from the church’s mission. Should the Christian ekklesia want to remake the earthly city in her image? [8]
Leithart’s answer to that question is “Yes.” In that respect, he and Wilson, despite what other differences they may have are in agreement.
[1] The Federal Vision – The Gospel Coalition
[2] Leithart, Against Christianity, 14-16.
[3] Leithart, Against Christianity, 16.
[4] Leithart, Against Christianity, 30-31.
[5] Leithart, Against Christianity, 123.
[6] Leithart, Against Christianity, 123.
[7] Leithart, Against Christianity, 124-125.
[8] Leithart, Against Christianity, 125.
Faithroots 