Woke Wars II is widely seen as infighting among Christian Nationalists; however, this perspective is wildly inaccurate. Opposing Christian Nationalism from the beginning was James White, who derided the adherents as “Sacralists.” White has emerged as a critical ally for Doug Wilson in Woke Wars II. However, what many might not realize is that Doug Wilson is not a Christian Nationalist and never was.
Despite publishing Stephen Wolfe’s Case For Christian Nationalism, Doug Wilson had his own agenda in mind. Doug Wilson has done much to advance Christian Nationalism, nevertheless. Yet his recent dissent from Christian Nationalism is one borne out of disagreements on the Christian view of Modern Jews, and the inconsistent position in Moscow, Idaho. Wilson forged the Antioch Declaration which ended in disaster, as most of Wilson’s elders refused or neglected to sign. Wilson is not a Christian Nationalist. He is a Postmillennial Theonomic Libertarian. The former is an eschatological worldview. Although shared by prominent Christian Nationalist pastor Joel Webbon, Stephen Wolfe is amillennial. Christian Nationalism, although it has great overlap with Theonomy in terms of goals and policies, Christian Nationalism has a simpler framework that does not require contorting Scriptures to find biblical justification for righteous solutions to modern problems. Doug Wilson’s ideal government has always been more libertarian, as made clear with his appearance on Tucker Carlson.
I’ll let Stephen Wolfe explain the rest.
Some comments on the alleged “infighting” and “division” in the Christian nationalist camp.
BLUF: The infighting and division is greatly exaggerated. There is actually a lot of unity.
A little personal history first.
When I was writing my book for Canon Press, I never expected Doug Wilson to adopt the label
“Christian nationalist”. I was actually surprised to hear him identify as such. To this day, I don’t know why he did it. (There’s no obligation by a publisher to adopt the terminology of their authors). Perhaps it was to rebrand and infuse energy into “reconstructionism”. Perhaps it was to build a new coalition. I don’t know. But he took it, though with reservations. He regularly said “I can work with the label.” To my knowledge, he is the only person in the Moscow orbit to adopt it. And that bothered a lot of his people, because my theology is basically that of Reformed orthodoxy, not Greg Bahnsen or more recent innovators.
After the book came out, several people in Wilson’s world began to attack me publicly: Peter Leithart, Alastair Roberts, Brian Mattson, David Bahnsen, James White, Andrew Sandlin, Joe Boot, and others. Stupid accusations of “Thomism”, “Romanism”, and “sacralism” were thrown around, riling up the ignorant. Many tried privately to get the book pulled. People associated with the Theopolis Institute tried to dig up dirt on me. But they (not finding anything on me) tried to harm me indirectly: by doxxing my friend in the worst possible way (by Leithart’s consent).
So, naturally, there was conflict between me and them. At that time, it was mainly me against all these guys. (Things have changed a lot in two years). But it wasn’t “infighting between Christian nationalists.” It was late 20th century boomer political theology vs classical Protestantism. We were never in the same “camp”. Most people in the broad Wilson orbit were against me from the beginning.
Fast forward two years, and there’s a feud between me and Doug Wilson. But calling this “division” in the CN camp or the “fall of CN” misunderstands the history and situation
Today, there is remarkable unity on the Christian New Right (CNR), of which “Christian nationalism” is but one label that some have adopted. My friendship with the Ogden guys, Joel Webbon, Isker/Engel, the American Reformer folks, and many others (even non-Protestants) is solid, and I foresee nothing that could break it. We don’t agree on everything but we are friends. There is no infighting among us. There is collaboration. The feuding is between *all of us* and one man Doug Wilson–the man who “can work with the term” and who is himself responsible for starting and perpetuating the feud.
It isn’t even clear that Doug is part of the CNR, since he’s a theonomic libertarian and would probably call us “statists” and maybe “woke right.” He fits far better with the crowd that was attacking me from the beginning–the “anti-sacralist”, anti-Aristotle, “postmill hope,” revivalist camp of White and Boot.
So the “infighting” is between a united, diverse, and lively group….and one man — a man accidentally attached to us by adoption of “Christian nationalism” with qualification. Also, the appearance of infighting is exacerbated by the overlap of Doug’s online supporters and those who were never on the CN or CNR side. They are followers of Leithart, White, Boot, etc. supporting Doug against us. CN is not “breaking apart” or “endlessly dividing.” Nor has it “failed”. Most of our current opponents were never united with us.
CN division is grossly exaggerated.
Anyone who claims that CN has fallen is either a propagandist or ignorant. The Christian New Right is doing quite well, and we’re growing rapidly. Several collaborative projects are in the works. This is only the beginning.
Finally, none of us want conflict with Doug Wilson. Even though I don’t think he fits well with the CNR, we certainly can be cobelligerents against the left. But uniting with us is his choice to make.
8 Responses
it should die. It’s a waste of these precious Last Days debating something that will never be a reality.
There is a need for a lot of historical scholarship to clear things up. 1) The majority of both sides (though not Wolfe) appeal to Kuyper, but Kuyper consciously threw out the Reformed Scholasticism, that Wolfe is trying to revive, as a failure that had been holding back Reformed thought since about 1650. Kuyperianism turned out to be even worse, as it underlies many contradictory views including Radical Two-Kingdom (three covenant) theology. 2) Wolfe does not seem to recognize the variety of natural-law thought coming out of the middle ages with Thomism, already debunked by the end of the 14th century, and living on in fossilized form in the universities as the via antiqua. 3) Libertarian theonomy (states with open borders and no real nations) was already explicit in Gary North, and was part of the bedrock of Tyler Reconstruction. 4) The Puritan Hope was not what James White gets out of Iain Murray, but was the expectation of military conquest of Europe and Middle East in the 17th century, as the initiation of the millennium. It has much in common with the crusading that White so much abominates. 5) Joe Boot is very influenced by Reformational Theology (Dooyeweerd/Vollenhoven) and is fundamentally different from these other guys. It is odd that he keeps a coalition with them, as it really depends on not noticing their differences. 6) Most of the Doug Wilson team are Federal Vision, with their rejection of the Reformation formulation of justification, and the rest have decided to abandon the adherence to or else the defense of the material principle of the Reformation (justification) in order to make the libertarian theonomic coalition. This is the acute point of White’s hypocrisy.
My view is that we need to get away from Kuyperianism without going back to the dead Scholasticism that it tried to replace.
Also, this dispute is only among a small Reformed circle. Catholics like Candace Owens and perhaps JD Vance, soon to be in power, also believe in sone form of Christian Nationslism. Its a response to covid lockdowns and to the trans agenda, so its not limited to the Reformed. Even in traditionally Anabaptist “voting is a sin” circles Christian Nationalism is gaining supporters. Christian Nationslism doesn’t have to be a goofy theonomist doomed to fail attempt at theocrasy based on mosaic law; it would better if it were simply not allowing non-christisns to hold or run for office. Accusing Steven Wolfe of Thomism will only make him more popular with the non-Calvinists, especially Catholics, so Wilson actually helped him.
The theonomist vision of James White, Joe Boot, Jeff Durbin, etc., (i.e. a Calvinist theocrasy that cains Leighton Flowers publicly and puts him in the stocks, and flays Warren Macgrew alive, for denying individual predestion, and jails Arminians,) will never be a reality, because Christisn Nationalism will be a broad coallition and include Arminians, Provisionists, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, and not just be a tiny Calvinist cabal from Apologia Church ruling as wannabe philospher kings.
You don’t even need a systematic theology for Christian Nationalism. Its this simple: We Christians are the majority and we will not be ruled by atheists and Jews anymore. More and more Christians taking that perspective because its common sense based on our experience (DESPITE stupid systematic theologies trying to argue against it) will lead to Christian Nationalism.
“We Christians” is a theological concept. You can’t get away from it by pretending that it can function as a basis, while still being a mere verbal formula.
As long as those who think they’re Christian and who oppose LGBTQP+ band together to root LGBTQP+ out of our society entirely, it doesn’t matter if even 99% of them are not “real Christians,” they will successfully deport LGBTQP+ back to Tel Aviv where it belongs.
Wilson’s new found popularity will wane because of this and ironically he caused both to happen in the same year.