I have decided to do a brief review of a review of Stephen Wolfe’s book, The Case for Christian Nationalism. The original review can be found here https://heidelblog.net/2024/02/review-the-case-for-christian-nationalism-by-stephen-wolfe/ and is written by Shane Lems. Much of the review can be done away with in a few simple comments, and realizing this was the case, I decided to give it a go. I have decided to selectively comment on the parts I found the most substantial.
Wolfe notes that he is writing from a Reformed Christian point of view which ought to be assumed throughout the book (16). TCCN, however, does not make its case directly from Scripture or Reformed theology since Wolfe does not claim to be a biblical scholar or a theologian (16)
Certainly Wolfe truly claims that he is no biblical scholar or theologian, but we should note that this does not at all mean that he is not directly arguing from Reformed theology. His point on page 16 is quite the opposite in that precisely because he is not a theologian, he “assume[s] this [Reformed] system and work[s] from it”. This is, of course, a minor gripe, but I certainly do not think it quite accurate to say that a book that has constant recourse to Turretin, Calvin, Junius, Keckermann, Rutherford, and Vermigli does not make its case directly from Reformed theology.
Interestingly, he also interacts somewhat positively with the Reformed teaching of the two kingdoms.
This sentence is a very strange line that no doubt indicates that the author has a confused view of the Reformed teaching of two kingdoms. Wolfe’s book would not be possible without such teaching and thus his interaction with it is neither “interesting” nor “somewhat positive”.
At times, the arguments were complex and intricate to the point of confusion. For example, he discussed the visible/invisible church along with another distinction between the “visible church” and “the people of God” (110). The argument was unclear. It seemed as if he made a threefold- or even fourfold-distinction of the visible/invisible church.
Wolfe’s distinction between “the visible church” and “the people of God” is made clear by his definition of “the people of God” as referring to “Christians as restored humans”. In other words, “the people of God” is referring to those members of the visible church considered under the aspect of restored humanity. Thus Junius says that “to the extent that we may be Christians, we do not cease being humans, but we are Christian human beings.” “Visible church”, as Wolfe says, in his usage, picks out “only…the spiritual, heavenward aspect of those who profess Christ”. Thus, it should be clear that Wolfe is not at all even considering distinctions within the visible/invisible church, but two different aspects that Christians may be considered under.
Furthermore, the logic in TCCN was such that the arguments fell flat because some of the premises were false. For example, Wolfe several times asserted that Adam’s role of “maturing” the earth is also the Christian’s current responsibility. Since I do not agree with this premise, his lengthy arguments about the Christian’s role on earth lacked a foundation.
First of all, look at what is being said here: “the logic in TCCN was such that the arguments fell flat because some of the premises were false.” Oh, okay, which premise is false? We are told: “Wolfe several times asserted that Adam’s role of “maturing” the earth is also the Christian’s current responsibility.” Alright, and why is this false? “Since I do not agree with this premise, his lengthy arguments about the Christian’s role on earth lacked a foundation.” What is this? Because Shane Lems does not agree with this premise, therefore it is false? This is no argument at all against Wolfe’s premise, but a bare assertion of the opinion of the author and thus makes for an absolutely meaningless line in a review.
But ought Shane Lems to reject such a premise and is this premise held by the Reformed tradition? To answer that second question, yes, such a premise is unanimously held by the Reformed. The “maturing” of the earth, the dominion mandate, is constantly affirmed by the Reformed to be a part of man’s nature. This is clearly seen, for instance, in their affirmations of the command of marriage; for instance, take Perkins here: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A09377.0001.001/1:3.3?rgn=div2;submit=Go;subview=detail;type=simple;view=fulltext;q1=earth “Fourthly, God gaue a large bles∣sing vnto the estate of mariage, saying, Increase and multiplie and fill the earth”, “The first is, procreation of children, for the propagation and continuance of the seed and posteritie of man vpon the earth , Gen. 1. 28. Bringforth fruit multi∣plie, fill the earth, and subdue it.” One can look also at Turretin’s treatment of the image of God at 5.10.XXII and Thomas Aquinas affirms the same https://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.SS_Q66_A1.html I find it hardly necessary to rack up quotations at this point, as such a thing ought to be obvious from nature. Man has a natural right over the earth and therefore a natural duty to make use of it, directing it to its natural end. Man has a moral obligation to make use of the gifts he has been given. As a part of the image of God, dominion over the creature cannot be extinguished from man’s nature. Wolfe argues all these things very clearly here: https://institutesofchristianpolitics.substack.com/p/the-immutable-dominion-mandate I cannot see how this can possibly be denied. If one denies that men have a responsibility to mature the earth, it seems they must be asserting either:
1) that men possess no right over the earth.
2) that men possess no duty to direct the earth to its natural end.
The first must not be said and has never been asserted by any, and the second simply follows from the first inasmuch as rights imply duties and man must make use of things according to their natural purposes.
Although he claims to be writing from a Reformed perspective, not all of his theological views are Reformed or even within the bounds of historic Reformed theology. As I have implied, his view of covenant theology is somewhat of an amalgamation. He denies the concept of Adam meriting anything before the fall, using the term “maturity” instead (43). This is simply not a confessional Reformed view (cf. WCF 7.2).
I am assuming that the “amalgamation” is referring to Wolfe denying the concept of Adam meriting anything before the fall, as I must, given that this is the only thing that we are told is apparently wrong here. WCF 7.2 says: “The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.” Wolfe does not deny this. What Wolfe denies is precisely that which was universally and unanimously denied by all of the Reformed: that Adam would have “properly” merited anything before the Fall. It is constantly affirmed by the Reformed that Adam would not and could not do such a thing.
Thus Turretin says:
Therefore there was no debt (properly so called) from which man could derive a right, but only a debt of fidelity, arising out of the promise by which God demonstrated his infallible and immutable constancy and truth. If the apostle seems to acknowledge this right or debt (Rom. 4:4), it must be understood in no other than a respective sense; not as to the proportion and condignity of the duty rendered to God by man (Rom. 8:18; Lk. 17:10), but to the pact of God and justice (i.e., the fidelity of him making it)...If therefore upright man in that state had obtained this merit, it must not be understood properly and rigorously. Since man has all things from and owes ail to God, he can seek from him nothing as his own by right, nor can God be a debtor to him-not by condignity of work and from its intrinsic value (because whatever that may be, it can bear no proportion to the infinite reward of life), but from the pact and the liberal promise of God (according to which man had the right of demanding the reward to which God had of his own accord bound himself).
And again,
Hence also it appears that there is no merit properly so called of man before God, in whatever state he is placed. Thus Adam himself, if he had persevered, would not have merited life in strict justice, although (through a certain condescension [synchatabasin]) God promised him by a covenant life under the condition of perfect obedience (which is called meritorious from that covenant in a broader sense because it ought to have been, as it were, the foundation and meritorious cause in view of which God had adjudged life to him).
And John Owen speaks of the same distinction, saying:
"Some Divines say, That in innocency we could not merit; when the Covenant did seem to hang upon Works, we could, in their sense, impetrare, but not mereri; obtain by vertue of doing, but not deserve: Merit and desert are improper notions to express the relation between the work of a creature, and the reward of a Creator."
And Rutherford:
If God, of justice, give Adam life, Adam might compell God to pay, what he oweth him, else he should be unjust: But the creature can lay no necessitie on the Creator, either to work without himself, nor can he cause him to will. 4. The proper work of merite (saith great Bradwardine) and of him that works must go before the wages, in time, or in order of nature. And if the worker receive its operation, and working for wadge from God first, and by his vertue and help continue in operation and working, he cannot condignely merit at the hand of God, but is rather more in Gods debt, after his working, then before his working, because he bountifullie receives more good from God, then before, especially, because he gives nothing proper of his own to God, but gives to God his own good; But no man first acts for God, for God is the first actor and mover in every action, and motion. As that saith, Who gave first to the Lord, and it shall be recompensed him?
…
If God did more for Adam, then he can recompence God for it, as the Father hath done to the Son, then he could not merit at the hand of God: But God did more to Adam in giving to him being, faculties, mind, will, affections, power, habites, his blessed Image, then Adam can never be in a condition, in which he can recompence God.
This very common affirmation among the Reformed is precisely Wolfe’s meaning on page 43, as Heavenly life can never be due to some intrinsic worth in the work of the creature.
Similarly, his critique of the “modern” two kingdoms doctrine is inaccurate. The “modern” Reformed two kingdoms view is quite in line with the historic Reformed view of the two kingdoms.
Were this the case, there would be no controversy here between Wolfe and Lems. I judge it indisputable that the historic Reformed view of the two kingdoms as expressed by Turretin, Voetius, Rutherford, Junius, and Gillespie is simply not that of modern 2k proponents and cannot be made to agree with such a modern view by any stretch of the imagination. I take this as so patently obvious that I am content to merely assert it here. I cannot see how one can claim the view of Rutherford and of Voetius and and of Gillespie and of Junius and go on to make the basic mistakes that modern 2k proponents make such as Lems’s prior comments regarding the dominion mandate. A very clear exposition of their views, apart from simply just reading them, can be found here: https://reformedbooksonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Fentiman-The-Civil-Governments-Power-about-Religion-and-the-Church-Circa-Sacra.pdf and many other helpful resources are found at reformedbooksonline.com as well as https://purelypresbyterian.com/ I know that Wolfe agrees with what is found therein, so why does Lems dispute with Wolfe unless Lems is the one with the ahistoric view?
In fact, Wolfe’s explanation of the two kingdoms is itself a novel one, for two reasons. First, he injects postmillennialism into the historic teaching of the two kingdoms, resulting in kingdom confusion where the spiritual kingdom and civil kingdom essentially overlap. Second, his view of the two kingdoms includes a non-Reformed view of the Christian’s role to “mature” the earth like Adam was supposed to do. In a word, Wolfe’s Christian nationalist view of the two kingdoms is far out of step with historic Reformed theology.
First of all, Wolfe is not a postmillennialist and therefore cannot “inject it” into the “historic teaching of the two kingdoms” (whatever such an “injection” of postmillennialism into the doctrine would even mean). Wolfe is amillennial and therefore this can be nothing more than a misrepresentation of Wolfe, unworthy of any review. Second of all, many proponents of the classical, Reformed teaching regarding the two kingdoms were in fact postmillennialists (Samuel Rutherford, a Brakel), so I am not really sure what I am supposed to get from this sentence (maybe they are okay because they did not “inject” their postmillennialism into their 2k views, but we’re still left in the dark as to what that would mean). Thirdly, we are not told how exactly Wolfe has created a “kingdom confusion where the spiritual kingdom and civil kingdom essentially overlap.” Sadly, like most of the review, this is simply asserted and never explained and thus leaves me wondering what the point of saying such a thing in the first place even is. We have addressed his comments on the dominion mandate above.
His denial of historic Reformed covenant theology and his excessive speculation about pre-fall civil government raises many red flags. For example, Wolfe’s hypothesis of prelapsarian civil government and laws could only have occurred while Adam was still “maturing” the world. Is it even possible for one to speculate how civil governments would establish laws that help mature the world in a sinless context? For another example, Wolfe writes that “a prelapsarian world is one of diverse vocations” (60). He purports that there would be various languages, cultural diversity, in-group/out-group distinctions, and male-dominated vocations in a prelapsarian world (64–73). When reading his speculations about a prelapsarian world, it seems to me that his views are based more on his Christian nationalist views than on biblical deductions
We have already addressed Wolfe’s “denial of historic Reformed covenant theology” as it relates to Adamic merit and found it to be nothing more than vanilla Reformed teaching, but if there is more to this “denial of historic reformed covenant theology” (a serious accusation not to be made without proof) we are, again, left in the dark as to what it is. Wolfe’s speculation on prelapsarian civil government is hardly “excessive” as he is simply reasoning from the things that we see belong to nature to the fact that such things must also have been even if there were no sin. We must remember that, as Junius says, Law is “the ordering of reason to the common good established by the one who has care of the community.” And as Wolfe says, “civil government would have been necessary for unfallen people to coordinate action for the common good”. If both of these are true, then to answer Lems’s question, yes, it is “possible for one to speculate how civil governments would establish laws that help mature the world in a sinless context.” Wolfe’s assertion here ought not to be disputed as reason shows that laws are necessary to be made so that an entire world of people be ordered towards trying to accomplish the common good (if you question this, then try accomplishing . Here, I take Wolfe’s justification under his section on civil government (pg. 70) as more or less self-evident. As for historical precedent, I take this view to be the majority position among the Reformed, albeit with some outliers. Wolfe, of course acknowledges that some like Luther and Augustine (though I very much dispute the fact that Augustine denied this) held the contrary position, but in support cites Willard (who has much to say here in his Body of Divinity) and Thomas. Voetius is inclined to agree (https://www.e-rara.ch/zuz/content/zoom/6928853) (which, for my own part, has long grieved me as I wish he would have simply affirmed here). And it is very difficult to see how there could not be a civil government prior to the fall for men like Van Mastricht who apparently affirm that the descendants of Adam would not have been confirmed in grace and thus liable to fall at any time (as for instance was also held by Thomas https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1100.htm#article2). It is from this assumption that Wolfe derives his section on martial virtue before the fall (though the section is of course relevant in any case assuming the fall of angels). Wolfe’s conclusion on civil government and on vocational and civil diversity can of course also be drawn out by many of Wolfe’s quotes from men like Alsted, Keckermann, Althusius, and of course, Thomas which he provides in that chapter. So in short, I do not think that Wolfe’s speculation is very excessive at all and is certainly not out of step with the tradition’s own speculation.
Whatever has place in either the prelapsarian or the postlapsarian world has it by some purpose and if these purposes are one and the same then such a thing has place in both worlds. The purpose of civil government is to order society to the common good and this purpose holds good in both worlds. Therefore, civil government would exist in both worlds.
Edit 2/21/23: I wanted to add in Rutherford's opening words in Lex Rex:
As domestic society is by nature's instinct, so is civil society natural in radice, in the root, and voluntary in modo, in the manner of coalescing. Politic power of government agreeth not to man, singly as one man, except in that root of reasonable nature; but supposing that men be combined in societies, or that one family cannot contain a society, it is natural that they join in a civil society, though the manner of union in a politic body, as Bodine saith, be voluntary
He also errs in his explanation of definitive sanctification. It is unclear and confusing, but it seems that Wolfe means “regeneration” when he talks about “definitive sanctification.” Although the two are related, confounding them produces odd statements. For example, he writes, “definitive sanctification principally restores one to true dignity by re-infusing the perfective features of prelapsarian man” (94). Wolfe’s views of definitive sanctification—or whatever he means by it—are very confusing and not what one would find in historic Reformed writings. In fact, at many points he claims to be advocating Reformed theology, but without proper citation, which leads me to question many of his statements. In a word, Wolfe is incorrect when he says none of his conclusions are “in substance, outside or inconsistent with the broad Reformed tradition” (17). Indeed, some positions in TCCN are far removed from historic Reformed theology.
This is an interesting area that I’ve looked into myself and it’s an area that still needs a lot of work done on it. I can however say that Wolfe’s use of “definitive sanctification” is entirely in line with their understanding of it, given as he clearly has 17.1 of Turretin’s Institutes in mind when he touches on it. So, whereas Lems writes:
“For example, he writes, “definitive sanctification principally restores one to true dignity by re-infusing the perfective features of prelapsarian man” (94). Wolfe’s views of definitive sanctification—or whatever he means by it—are very confusing and not what one would find in historic Reformed writings.”
It is really quite unfortunate that he stuck that second sentence in there, as Wolfe is simply paraphrasing Turretin:
“[sanctification] consists in a change and renovation of the nature itself, corrupted by original sin, by which depraved qualities and habits are cast out and good ones infused so that the man desists from evil acts and strives for good.”
Herman Witsius says similarly, “When sanctification denotes the first implantation of spiritual habits, it is a mere blessing from God, in procuring what we do not co-operate with him, but receive it from him. As it signifies the activity, or lively exercise of infused habits, and their corroboration and progress, so far we are active; but then it is as we are acted upon under God, and dependently on him.”
This should make it clear that for the historic Reformed, “definitive sanctification” refers to the initial infusion of grace into human nature by which it is decisively changed for the better. One can reference Park’s dissertation here: https://digitalcommons.calvin.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=cts_dissertations
This is, of course, in line with their general tendency to speak of what we would usually refer to as regeneration as “sanctification” and vice versa (as is often seen in Calvin for instance) so that either word may be used interchangeably and thus you can see them speaking of a progressive regeneration or an instantaneous sanctification.
So, no, once again, Wolfe is not out of line with the Reformed tradition here, but instead replicates their thought quite closely.
Speaking of citations, the lack of citations in this book is deeply frustrating. Regularly, the author asserts various points or gives information without producing any citations. He refers to “the venerated Thomist view that ‘law is to make men good’” (258). There is, however, no citation for this statement which cannot be considered common knowledge. Although Wolfe’s comments on the founding of America do contain some citations, many statements seem to be his views, unsubstantiated by scholarship. Overall, Wolfe’s rosy Christian view of America’s founding is inaccurate, and very much up for debate. He explains the “Anglo-Protestant development of classical Protestant principles” in America’s founding but does not cite his sources. I very much doubt this and other claims, and want to see information for further study. Ordinarily, academic writing contains numerous citations referencing primary and secondary literature. The lack of extensive citations in TCCN, however, is a glaring weakness. Perhaps the publisher, Canon Press, is also to blame for this weakness. Altogether, the lack of citations in TCCN leads me to believe many of Wolfe’s views are his own and unsupported.
At first I thought this was probably the most valid criticism of the book, but then I began to think through this more. Sure,. Wolfe could have cited Thomas at that point (it is found here in Thomas (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2092.htm#article1), though of course, Aristotle said it first, but as Lems himself says of Wolfe’s book, “it is intended for advanced readers” so he does not seem very consistent with his standards here. If the intended audience is supposed to be more advanced, then this fact may very well be common knowledge among his target audience (and indeed it was for me and many of my friends who have read the book). It is also true that Wolfe could have given more citations regarding his claims on the founding of America. So at first I thought to grant this criticism until I realized the hypocrisy in Lems following this criticism up with the statement that “Wolfe’s rosy Christian view of America’s founding is inaccurate” (a statement, of course, he provides no citations for in order to substantiate). As for that sentence, “Altogether, the lack of citations in TCCN leads me to believe many of Wolfe’s views are his own and unsupported” I again cannot help but notice the irony in that this occurs in the same review in which Lems criticized Wolfe’s prelapsarian views solely on the basis that Lems disagrees with them.
Wolfe’s mono-ethnic conception of nationalism is quite troubling for various reasons. First, for the Christian, Christ has broken down the wall between Jew and Gentile (Eph 2:14). The church is comprised of people from all nations, tribes, and tongues (Eph 2:14; Rev 5:9). How does it make sense then, in a supposedly Christian world, to separate Christians into nations based on their ethnicities? And practically speaking, if the United States becomes a Christian nation, which ethnic group gets to stay and which ones have to go? What Scripture references support separating Christians based on ethnicity? I am not sure how this view can be absolved of racism.
As I saw someone point out https://x.com/JoeGibbons84/status/1758197968111308826?s=20 This is simply an egregious conflation of the two kingdoms. Look at what is being said here: “The church is comprised of people from all nations, tribes, and tongues (Eph 2:14; Rev 5:9). How does it make sense then, in a supposedly Christian world, to separate Christians into nations based on their ethnicities?” The logic is: “the church is comprised of many ethnicities…therefore how can nations separate on the basis of ethnicity?” Certainly, the only way for such an argument to make any sense is to assume that the church and nations must be one and the same. But they are not. As Stephen often quotes from Calvin, “Regarding our eternal salvation it is true that one must not distinguish between man and woman, or between king and a shepherd, or between a German and a Frenchman. Regarding policy however, we have what St. Paul declares here; for our Lord Jesus Christ did not come to mix up nature, or to abolish what belongs to the preservation of decency and peace among us....there does have to be some order among us, and Jesus Christ did not mean to eliminate it, as some flighty and scatterbrained dreamers [assert]." And as an aside, I cannot figure out what the phrase “in a supposedly Christian world” means here and how it is supposed to be operating in this sentence. Is it that he is conceiving of a world in which all are Christians and wondering how we then can discriminate between nations? I have to imagine so, though this would certainly be no less of a fallacy, for each nation has a right to its own and is under no obligation to let in those who might hurt it (see Winthrop https://www.masshist.org/publications/winthrop/index.php/view/PWF03d335). I would that Lems had written this argument out syllogistically so that we could make some more sense of it. But as it is, it is no more than an invalid jump from one kingdom to another; “church is X…therefore, how can society be Y?” can never work. I also want to acknowledge the biblicism in this statement here, “What Scripture references support separating Christians based on ethnicity?”. This might be said of all sorts of things (“what Scripture references support private property among Christians?”) as it is once again a failure to distinguish between the two kingdoms and argue from natural principles.
Wolfe’s views of a Christian nation raised more questions for me than they answered. If various nations in a geographical area are Christian nations, must they have military forces and develop weapons?
What? (I just wanted to include this part. I have no idea what it means). In all seriousness, to actually ask this question makes me think that one has serious misunderstandings of the relation between nature and grace.
Would it be possible to sue someone in a Christian nation even though the Bible discourages it (1 Cor 6:1)?
I am begging all readers to read Calvin at this point and at the other relevant passages. The Reformed have never understood Scripture to outright forbid lawsuits, even those directed towards other Christians. Nor could they be wrong since they are grounded in the law of nature.
Even more importantly, why did he avoid discussing Christ’s glorious return and the subsequent new heavens and earth?
Because this is irrelevant to political theory. I would not expect a physics textbook to do this either.
I have refrained from giving quotes from the Reformed that Stephen has already given in his book since they are already there for all to look at (though I do wish to simply point out that Lems does not actually interact with any of them, which seems to me to be the reason that this review ultimately goes nowhere). This review by Lems has failed to grapple with and understand the Reformed tradition at various points. It does not even offer any arguments against Stephen’s book but merely expresses the author’s unsubstantiated opinion on the matter. The bottom line is that this is simply not a good review in any way. I probably would not have written this unless I saw some praising the review, but seeing its various misunderstandings of the Reformed tradition and very mangled use of logic combined with serious accusations against Wolfe, I thought it best to attempt a response seeing as it would not be difficult to do.