Having authored the seminal work, Stephen Wolfe remains a pivotal thought leader in Christian Nationalism, a project he has always viewed as compatible with the American experience. Part of his mission is to spark a revival in protestant political thought that differs from the Post-War Consensus drivel which attempts to root Christian political theory in a framework that only has been believe post-1945 which is vastly different than the Reformers and subsequent generations on matters of the civil magistrate. It was Wolfe who reintroduced and popularized the idea of a Christian Prince, which has been used as his critics to suggest that a “Christian” tyrant would be somehow worse than a secular one.
That said, Wolfe has generally been congenial with many on the Right, which would include Michael Spangler. Spangler was removed from the OPC for largely his thoughts on feminism and comparatively tame thoughts on Jews. To his credit, he was early within the OPC to call out Aimee Byrd, of which there has been little accountability in the OPC against those who negligently elevated her. However, since the divestiture, he has taken a different path and has become the face of race realism and “Kinism” in the Church, often being cited as a punching bag against men on the Right.
Stephen Wolfe had known Spangler for years, and it was always wielded against him by his liberal critics that he referred to Spangler as a “friend” and “good man.” Within the last two weeks, Spangler tweeted two tweets to the effect of justifying Corrie Ten Boom’s execution by the Third Riech and calling for a “Protestant Hitler.”
This led to Wolfe speaking out:
I’ve known Michael for many years. I don’t recall when we first met in person, but we became friends over three years ago. For much of that time, he lived near me. We’ve been to each other’s houses. Our families have had dinner together, and our kids have played together. On a few occasions, he volunteered to help me with projects on the property: building a deck, moving felled trees, and other things. His wife is kind. He has good kids. Michael was repeatedly kind to me. I’ve spent more time with him than 99% of his critics, though I haven’t seen him much in the last year or so.
I once said that Michael is a “friend” and “a good man”—-something used against me for nearly a year now. No critic has asked what I meant by it, and my default response is to ignore such people. I was referring to his kindness and generosity to me, and to his concern for my spiritual well-being, which surpassed that of many people in my life.
Mindful of this history, and out of loyalty to a friend, I did not denounce or openly distance myself from Michael as he began to embrace positions that I reject. This came at great personal cost, not only for me but especially for my family. Online agitators and tale-bearers, most of whom are incapable of argument, insinuated that Michael and I are “fellow Nazis,” despite my numerous articles, videos, and books contradicting that claim. I do not expect any session or presbytery to correct these sinful accusations (WLC 144), despite several coming from those vowed to maintain the “peace of the church.”
Michael knows the cost of being associated with him. He knows that anything he says places burdens upon others. I chose to endure them. An elderly man at my previous church—known and well respected in both the OPC and the PCA—encouraged me to remain friends with Michael for his sake, and I did.
The mention of an elder’s guidance is a notable detail, as Wolfe contends that he maintained the relationship to impart a positive effect on Spangler despite the hefty toll such a relationship brought upon his reputation. Both men do live in North Carolina, and his relationship was more than an online friendship. He appeals to the Westminster Larger Catechism Question 144 which deals with duties imparted by the 9th Commandment.
But the post below is a turning point for me. It represents a complete disregard for those who bear the costs of any degree of association. When consideration of others goes repeatedly unreciprocated, there comes a breaking point. It begins to look like exploitation. Obviously, “Christian prince” is a term I retrieved from the Protestant tradition, and it immediately recalls my work. Michael had to know that I, yet again, would be dragged into accusations of Naziism, even from those of decent will. He chose words (when there are alternatives) that instantly recall “Stephen Wolfe.” It is an act of betrayal. He has not considered how his actions affect others. He could have easily added, “I know that Stephen Wolfe does not agree with me.” But he did not.
Wolfe’s commentary reveals a fatigue from the relationship, finding that he had been betrayed by Spangler’s intentionally inflammatory comments. That Spangler makes such comments with disregard for how the impact others that have associated with him is the primary contention of Wolfe, as the blowback directly affects him.
As I’ve said for years now, I have no interest in retrieving Naziism, nor do I want a “Protestant Hitler.” Michael knows this, as I’ve said to him (among others) that revising 1930s German history is unnecessary to critique the “post-war consensus”. I am right-wing, but I am an American. By today’s standards, American history is right-wing, and it contains all the resources for recovering a manly, moral liberty and a Christian society. Anglo-Protestantism, despite its faults, is still the core tradition of America. Our fight is to recover it.
I have a high tolerance for differing opinions. I do not shy away from references to Marx, Nietzsche, Hegel, Heidegger, or “critical theory.” Viewing everything with the good/evil binary, or relying on a set of scary words to categorize intellectual history and various individuals, is unserious. I even use Marx in my MA philosophy thesis. But I would not say that we need a “Protestant Marx” or a “Protestant Heidegger”. We need a George Washington.
Given Michael’s behavior—his disregard for my position and the effects of his actions—I can no longer consider him a friend. But I will not take on a mission to destroy him. I will not toss epithets at him or make quips for spectacle. I simply cannot continue in what I consider an exploitive relationship. I pray that Michael and his lovely family would live well in godliness.
Wolfe finishes by stating how their visions differ and that he can “no longer consider him a friend” while also pledging not to engage in destroying Spangler’s reputation. A comparable example is Will Spencer, who had a relationship with Stone Choir and, after a falling-out, made his mission to bash them.
Spangler has responded with his own statement:
For those inquiring, yes Stephen did write me privately about this, today mid-morning. I wrote back on my lunch break, forty minutes before he posted this. Here I share a version of my private response to him, edited for public viewing, as I think it will be helpful for others.
[Spangler’s messages written below]
Hi Stephen, I’m sorry that we don’t agree. I do not need to speak for you. I will leave it to you to represent yourself. The term “Christian prince” is a good one you taught me, but I made no statement that you agreed with my post. It’s fairly public now that we disagree on certain matters.
As to burdens, this is the cost of friendship in this evil age. I do nothing in order to harm you. It is McGowan and other slanderers who are guilty of that. But if we refused to speak truth because of how enemies might twist it to harm friends, we would never speak a word. Or at least no effective and faithful word. And if you say friendship requires no public disagreement at all, those terms are not acceptable. Real friends value truth over friendship.
The conversation starts out cordial, but then Wolfe’s central point of Spangler’s disregard for how his actions impact others is evident in the second paragraph. While Eli McGowan is far from a good actor, the harm to Wolfe is in how the association impacts his relationship with those who might be won over or at least amenable to conversation. That is where the rest of the messages go.
Your unwillingness to give public support to real Nationalism (not the “civic” kind), whether from myself, or Hitler, proves that you cannot stomach the hard sacrifices that will be necessary for our people to be delivered.
The next logical step is that you publicly denounce me. If you do this I will respond appropriately and moderately. You know as well as I that this will divide our movement. When that happens, the fault will not be mine.
Instead of going down this path, the better way is to repent of being so afraid of shame and reproach. I know very well the pressure you are under from church leaders, and certain big names in the CN sphere. Let me be clear: those men are not your friends. They are evil cowards who are emotionally manipulating you. Stop listening to them, take the consequences of getting canceled from their clique, and just move on. This will be hard, but if you trust Christ in this, he will reward you, and care for your family.
You should recognize in this, I have not changed. … I’ve been clear on these points in public for a while now, on X, on Old Paths, and on American Mantle. I regret that some of this has required me to critique your work, even at times directly. But I do it for the cause of truth and our people’s good, and not at all to bring you trouble. I still support you all I can in public, for example by reposting you whenever I can. I am not disloyal. We disagree, and enemies are now abusing that disagreement to try to make your life unbearable. You ought not let them have this power over you.
I remain grateful for the support you have shown, and will be sad to lose it. But the way forward for both of us is, not to seek the pleasure of men, but of the Lord.
There is several parting shots at Wolfe in which Spangler is accusing him of seeking the approval of Man and not God. Perhaps the “Big Names” include Doug Wilson, but Wilson has been distant from Wolfe prior to the Spangler drama.
On Protestant Hitler
The notion that the only Nationalism is the Hitler kind is tacitly untrue. Wolfe emphasizes the Anglo-American tradition because there are material differences between that and the German tradition that create manifest differences between the Anglosphere countries and Germany. German culture is more rigid and collectivist than the more rugged individualistic-Anglo-American culture that built America. Objectively, American Nationalism would more Hamiltonian in its economic structure rather than fascistic, with a strong protectionist trade policy and domestic free markets, which is what built America into an economic powerhouse.
The appeal to the Mustache Man is often because he recognized the Jews as the enemy, which regardless of the negative effects of international Jewry, the rehabilitation of Hitler is more reactionary than visionary. They adopt Hitler because he was against the fall of the West to the Bolsheviks (who were disproportionately Jewish) rather than appeal to American history and American heroes. Rehabilitating Hitler is foolish and counterproductive, and unnecessary to pushing back against Jewish influence, whether Zionism or Progressivism. There is no overcoming decades of propagandizing Hitler as Satan that makes such an effort worthwhile. If one wants a “Protestant Hitler,” the last thing that they should do is tweet their desires. It neither moves the Overton Window nor emulates how the Austrian Painter conducted politics.
Conclusion
Overall, this is a lesson in friendship and associations. There was nothing wrong with Wolfe maintaining a years-long relationship, that at times was close. Relationships are not unilaterally maintained. It is one thing to defend an association, but another for a man to constantly put his friendships to the test by being edgy on the internet. Having to constantly defend the provocative comments of a “friend” is taxing to a friendship, and this goes beyond anything to do with Spangler and Wolfe, but in the broader sphere.
Politics requires coalition building, and such online belligerence is not conducive to building friendships that are needed to transform shifts in the Overton Window into tangible policy outcomes.
There is a certain folly to purity spiraling on hobby horses while having comments that many find radioactive that is inconducive to coalition building. They may contend that they are correct, but it does not matter when they have burned all their bridges and dissuaded the alliances they could have had if they had not been internet spergs.
4 Responses
“Rehabilitating Hitler is foolish and counterproductive, and unnecessary to pushing back against Jewish influence, whether Zionism or Progressivism. There is no overcoming decades of propagandizing Hitler as Satan that makes such an effort worthwhile.”
Rehabilitating Hitler is absolutely critical to overcoming Jewish propaganda against the European peoples.
You shouldn’t be so sure that this propaganda cannot be overcome.
It only takes the boomers to finally get buried, until the Austrian painter turns into a another generic figure of history, down there with Napoleon and others. You cannot prevent that happening short of establishing a new religion. The latter is of course that is exactly what has been tried.
However you cannot build a new religion exclusively on a fully negative promise and without any appeal to the supernatural. The mustache is never ever going resurrect, never going to interfere supernaturally with your life and doesn’t promise any positive outcome for proper behavior. So at some point people born after the fact just drop that religion they have been baptized into as toddler and turn to secularism which doesn’t benefit from worshiping a dictator’s corpse.
The rest is a matter of time passed until controlling people with that narrative stops working completely. “Because of what Napoleon did, we need to…” – “What?”
I like Wolfe and met him at a conference. Good guy but like JD Hall, I think CN won’t ever work, especially here. People screw things up and the demographics won’t allow it. Wolfe is trying to stay relevant in the academic circles and they will never accept him anyway.
The Bolsheviks were hardly “disproportionately jewish” you have just presumed this because of internet memes. They weren’t even the most over-represented ethnic group and the soviets quickly oppressed the Jews massively just like other religions.