In Support of Christian Nationalism

The term “Christian Nationalist” is used today as an epithet by the cultural and political left and within the various media. And many “conservatives” and Christians disavow it. This is because the forces that prevail are thoroughly anti-Christian; and there is a desire to avoid upsetting the existing order. Some Christians also feel we ought not be concerned with “worldly” matters.

But in fact, Christian Nationalism is a great idea. Jared Longshore interviewed a few months ago Dr. Stephen Wolfe, who wrote the book, The Case for Christian Nationalism. The interview is a bit lengthy, but try to stay with it to the extent you feel led to do so:


3 thoughts on “In Support of Christian Nationalism

  1. I watched the video….

    From an Amazon review of Wolfe’s book , “The Case for Christian Nationalism” that challenges secularism with it’s message of a positive world vision :

    “Evangelical elites and the progressive media complex want you to think that Christian nationalism is hopelessly racist, bigoted, and an idol for right-wing Christians. Is Christian nationalism the golden calf of the religious right—or is it the only way forward?

    Few “experts” answering this question actually know what nationalism is–and even fewer know what could make it Christian. In The Case for Christian Nationalism, Stephen Wolfe offers a tour-de-force argument for the good of Christian nationalism, taken from Scripture and Christian thinkers ancient, medieval, and modern. Christian nationalism is not only the necessary alternative to secularism, it is the form of government we must pursue if we want to love our neighbors and our country.

    Wolfe shows that the world’s post-war consensus has successfully routed the United States towards a gynocratic Global American Empire (GAE). Rather than the religious right’s golden calf, Christian nationalism is the idea that people in the same place and culture should live together and seek one another’s good. The grace of the gospel does not eliminate our geography, our people, and our neighbors. Instead, it restores us to pursue local needs and local leadership freely and without apology.

    If you want to be able to answer the political debate raging today, you must understand the arguments in The Case for Christian Nationalism.”

  2. Very interesting interview. I wholeheartedly agree that we should be able to practice our Christian religion without ANY interference; however, I believe having our government endorse Christianity as the one true religion would violate our first amendment. Maybe I misunderstood.

  3. Fred, that Amazon review captures the interview pretty well. He provides a very logical framework for pursuing this goal. The problem is that we are very far away from being able to achieve this, at least at this particular moment. This was something that should have been pursued long ago. And as he suggests, we had some semblance of this at one time.

    John, thanks for commenting. Hope you are doing well. I think he is arguing primarily that Christian principles ought to inform how the government acts, and that Christians systematically and strenuously ought to assert the adoption of those principles in the public square. I think we have to remember the original meaning of the First Amendment’s establishment clause. The motivation for including this clause was to assure that one Christian denomination would not become the established religion over other Christian denominations.

    The immigration we have had since the passage of the 1965 immigration law complicates this situation. Because of that terrible law, we now have many people in the US who are Muslim and who embrace eastern religions like Hinduism and Buddhism.

    His argument for school prayer and for laws against blasphemy don’t, for instance, necessarily represent an establishment of one denomination (which is what the founders were trying to prevent with the 1st Amendment).

Comments are closed.