Michael O’Fallon is perhaps the leading figure among the anti-Christian Nationalist who rejected wokeness, and he recently had a small conference attacking this theology of civil magistrate. A lecture given by Andy Woodard was perhaps one of the most clownish attempts to argue against Christian Nationalism to date.
Andy Woodard is the Nathaniel Jolly of Russell Moores. https://t.co/NRfLLSYgaQ— Evangelical Dark Web (@EvangelicalDW) September 6, 2023
This tweet was in reference to Andy Woodard’s reckless and tactless handling of topics to ultimately subvert a movement. As it would turn out, the ridiculous straw man using Nazis that Woodard employs on social media was also brought up in his lecture.
The lecture begins by justifying bad faith argumentation and logical fallacies. Andy Woodard actually argues that there is no need to fairly represent the position of Christian Nationalist because the term “has no definition.” This is ironic as Woodard uses the term “conservative” which is far more meaningless. If this logic applied to conservatives, it would follow that their is no need to represent conservative fairly in argument because their is no standard definition. This is slanderous unbecoming argumentation of a Christian, especially among Christians. Yet upon this rock of bad faith Woodard builds his argument.
From there, Woodard uses Stephen Wolfe as the standard bearer of Christian Nationalism while refusing to address his definition, let alone confront the fact that Wolfe’s The Case For Christian Nationalism largely focuses on what the Reformers believed.
According to Andy Woodard, defining a nation as a people and a place is the exact rhetoric as the Nazi’s “blood and soil.” This is a fallacy as he needs to prove that “blodd and soil” is bad beyond just a recognition of the Nazis. Andy Woodard believes America is an idea and that anyone can become an American by believing in the concept. This denigrating view of America is laughable as most Americans do not even believe in the ideals that he’s talking about. Additionally, how does his view of a nation transfer to say Israel? Is the modern nation-state of Israel an idea? Considering Zionism exist, perhaps that’s a bad example, but Zionism doesn’t make you a citizen over there. Being part of a people group does. Are we really going to argue that Angola, Ireland, Singapore, and Japan are all ideas as well. Or does people and place more define their nation. Thus the inadequacies of neoconservatism to be applied to another people and place exposes Woodard as someone who doesn’t understand history or politics. Woodard would say at the end that Christian Nationalist put their trust in princes, yet he puts his trust in the US Constitution. How is that a morally superior position?
Woodard’s lack of understanding of America’s founding is evident when he suggests that blasphemy laws, and repealing the 19th Amendment are bad things. He also does not understand theonomy whatsoever, claiming that theonomists must support open borders or else contradict their theology. I know of no theonomist who support open borders and that is independent of this debate.
However Christian Nationalism need not necessarily be theonomic, despite great overlap. Christian Nationalism is a broader umbrella, and Christian Nations have existed since the 4th century. All of these saw lasting legacies of Christian heritage that continue to this day, albeit with changed borders.
Stephen Wolfe has said that Christian Nationalism can be implemented under the US Constitution, and in going back to America’s founding, Andy Woodard would be forced to call the Founding Father’s tyrants for their blasphemy laws and established churches.
But instead, Woodard wants to paint them as classical liberals and argue that classical liberalism means freedom and is not related to the liberalism of today. When history begins post-WWII this is possible, I suppose.
In any case, Andy Woodard is not to be take seriously because his arguments, made in malice and slander, are not serious.