The ongoing Christian Nationalism debate has dominated Evangelical conversation in the month of April. The conversation however, has taken some ugly directions that are eerily reminiscent of the previous fight within the church: the Social Justice Gospel.
The Social Justice Gospel was a ubiquitous fight in the church but where it is distinguished was that the fight over Critical Race Theory was a fight between false teachers and faithful Christians, with some weaker brethren in the way. The Christian Nationalist debate is one for the most part consisting of faithful Christians… and then James Lindsay. I’ll write more about the latter later this week.
On the Christian Nationalist side you have Stephen Wolfe, author of the popular book, The Case For Christian Nationalism; William Wolfe; Joel Webbon of Right Response Ministries; Voddie Baucham; Andrew Torba, founder of Gab; AD Robles; and, least of all these brothers, myself and team Evangelical Dark Web.
On the other side, you have Josh Buice, Virgil Walker, and Scott Aniol of G3 Ministries; Samuel Sey; and Michael O’Fallon. I do not want to include voices I consider to have a questionable faith profession on these lists, as the larger list of those who oppose Christian Nationalism would include The Gospel Coalition and Russell Moore.
Earlier this month Stephen Wolfe set the conversation with a meme complementing white Evangelicals as a voting bloc.
White evangelicals are the lone bulwark against moral insanity in America. pic.twitter.com/UEGlBTgbwO
— Stephen Wolfe (@PerfInjust) April 17, 2023
This tweet was misread, intentionally, to be construed as racist, despite the fact that statistics bear it out.
My wife and I are not an interracial couple. Our marriage isn’t a union between two individuals
— Samuel Sey (@SlowToWrite) April 24, 2023
with different races.
There aren't two races in our marriage. There's only one.
Samuel Sey has the curious position of denying the existence of race yet he was among those who hurled the accusation of racist against Wolfe. This is inconsistent as saying that there’s one race would logically dictate that you’ve forgone the accusing people of racism. Samuel Sey’s premise would argue that different races are a manmade concept. Yet this too is what the woke believe. Critical Race Theorists, like Robin DiAngelo teach that race was invented to justify the Atlantic Slave trade.
Additionally Vigil Walker accused Stephen Wolfe’s version of Christian Nationalism as being ethnocentric.
Wolfe uses similar language of “blood and soil,” (blood and place) when describing his ethnic group as those with a genetic connection and those who have been on the land. You see, nationalism has consistently embraced ethnonationalism, which favors one group, known as “our people,” over others. This form of ethnonationalism can be seen in history as ethnic German nationalism and has justified its actions against people they deemed “undesirable” or “inferior.”
Does Wolfe recognize the problems that his Volksgeist movement presents? As he initiates dialogue with those who have questions, he often disarms his opponents by acknowledging that he will be accused of being a fascist, chauvinist, xenophobe, or racist. All of this is done to prevent the interviewer from attributing these notions to him when he presents them to you.
This is yet another case of theobros not understanding political science. A nation is a people which has historically been defined as ethnos. The Bible details nations as have common ancestry and a homeland. However, America has neither of these going for it. Thus Christian Nationalism is a solution to creating an undergirding social fabric, as Stephen Wolfe would argue.
Wolfe’s book is also keenly away that most of its readers will be white men. To which Virgil Walker writes:
While there’s nothing wrong with writing a book for Western white men, I am curious as to who Wolfe is signaling as he uses a quote from a book titled, Which Way Western Man? written by White Nationalist William Gayley Simpson.
Wolfe distances himself from the white nationalist dog whistle in the footnote, which few read, he writes,
“…This is not a “white nationalist” argument, for in my view, the designation “white,” as it is used today, hinders and distracts people from recognizing and acting for their people-groups, many of which (to be sure) are the majority “white” but are not on the basis of a modern racialist principle.
“Which way, western man” is also a meme, which Stephen Wolfe has been known to channel. But already, Virgil Walker devolves into accusing Stephen Wolfe of a racist dogwhistle. This is eerily similar to the fight against Critical Race Theory.
With his white male audience in view, Wofle builds out his homogenous ethnocentric nation. As Wolfe turns his attention to the subject of intermarriage, he understands that these unions will happen but doesn’t recommend them. In a September 2022 tweet, Wolfe writes, “And thus, while intermarriage is not itself wrong (as an individual matter), groups have a collective duty to be separate and marry among themselves.”
Wolfe’s present take on nationalism positions his cause on the dangerous intersection of Christian nationalism and ethnocentrism. I strongly advise followers to abandon this insufficient worldview.
Walker sloppily transitions from block quoting Wolfe’s book to parsing out Twitter conversation which is on the surface a non sequitur. Wolfe posits a group duty in which deviations do not amount to sin issues. While I believe this is unfounded in Scripture as there isn’t a biblical category for this, it’s also not racist as it applies to all groups equally.
Stephen Wolfe has repeatedly denied being a kinist which brings us to Owen Strachan of GBTS. After not knowing Stephen Wolfe’s positions on these issues, he demanded that Wolfe repent for his confusion.
Noted.
— Owen Strachan (@ostrachan) April 28, 2023
Now do the honorable thing, the manful thing: as stated, write up a piece showing us what statements you said that are kinist and are causing major confusion you now repent of and retract.
Repentance isn't a gesture in a direction; it takes ownership for discrete wrongs.
Stephen Wolfe’s fuller thoughts on marriage can be found here:
Conclusions
The attack on Christian Nationalism is devolving into accusations of racism which is a repeat of the previous few years. However, this time instead of Big Eva wielding the axe, Mid Eva is.
Mid Eva is a clever double entendre using both uses of the word “mid” to describe ministries that are not nearly as large as The Gospel Coalition.
The accusations of racism didn’t work when the woke preachers used them and it’s not going to work when Mid Eva uses them either. Mid Eva needs to abandon this strategy and actually argue from Scripture to make their point.
4 Responses
Both sides need to be careful to think things through, and to not get too worked up making false accusations of one another. Don’t let it turn into juvenile schoolgirl soap opera twitter fight. Give one another the benefit of the doubt.
Take an issue like interracial marriage, for example. At one time there was a movement that gained quite a bit of traction (and I don’t remember what it was called), to encourage and promote interracial marriage, as a duty, in order to create a “gray race” with the end goal of manufacturing peace.
Well, that’s ethnonationalism. It’s the goal of eliminating all ethnos and manufacturing a new one to take their place.
On the flip side, encouraging marriage within the same skin color, to the point of saying people have a duty to do so, could be construed to promote a godless sort of competition between ethnos to basically determine which comes out on top. The end of that would be ethnonationalist also.
In any case, if the end vision being shared is a nation containing all brothers and sisters regardless of color of skin, then it is obviously not a vision of a nation consisting of only one color of skin. So it’s unwise, and fairly childish, to overreact, jump to conclusions, and risk false accusation.
“Thou shalt not bear false witness.” Be sure to honor it.
The distinction between voluntary and compulsory is a massive distinction, which should be considered by all sides of the debate. As should the more important distinction of what falls within our domain of responsibility, and what encroaches on God’s domain and His authority. We have to be careful with that.
The issue of interracial marriage is a perfect example. Promoting it can be just as ethnonationalist as condemning it. Either can be sinful. And it not only depends on the end vision, but also the means envisioned to attain it. But the bottom line is that it is God’s decision who one marries. That’s God’s domain. It’s not a matter of any sort of “duty” either way. We do not have the authority or right to encroach on God’s domain into that which belongs to Him and Him alone. His vision is the only real vision that matters.
If there’s a problem with Wolfe’s statement in question, it would be that it encroaches on God’s domain. What he said isn’t racist, but it would seem to me to push the limit of said encroachment. And some of the responses to him would also do the same. There’s no “duty” or responsibility to mankind to marry inside or outside the same skin color. None whatsoever. That’s God’s domain. He chooses who or if we marry. End of discussion.
Sad state the world is in these days, to have to clarify that statement, and dumb it down to the point that the reprobates can comprehend.
God does not contradict Himself. He does not encourage sin. Nor does He encourage flagrant disrespect for His created order. The subject is His definition of marriage between one male and one female. If He makes a choice for you, it will fit within the standards He has put into place, and will be to His glory, for His purpose – for His vision.
I take a little heat for posting too much and making big long posts, but these days you just about have to go into great detail to explain, or your words will be taken the wrong way. People assume the worse, overreact, have a conniption, and it will quickly turn into that juvenile, soap-opera, fruitless twitter fight.
If you have the skills to keep it brief in such a manner that doesn’t require significant detail and explanation, that’s great. The Bible says our words should be few. If you don’t have that skill, and I certainly don’t, then it sort of becomes a matter of saying the least you possibly can, while making sure it is accurate, and as bulletproof as possible.
That’s the state this world is in. You can’t even say something like “God chooses who we marry” without having to follow it up with a darned book, lest wicked-minded people take your words and use them for wicked means.
It’s not a matter of trying to hog the blog or anything of that sort. I know some get aggravated, but the only alternative is to not speak at all, and if there’s something that needs to be said, I’m going to say it. A sin of omission is just as bad as a sin of commission.