Over the past few years, a movement among conservative Reformed Christians has arisen known as Christian Nationalism. The uniting theme among all Christian nationalists is a recognition of the devastating effects that the secularist and cultural Marxist ideologies have had on our once Christian West, as well as a great desire to see the West become an openly Christian civilisation once again. As a historically-minded, “all of Christ for all of life” Reformed Christian, these concerns have been things close to my heart, as well. In fact, this led me to run for office in the June 2022 Ontario provincial election.

            Yet, despite all this, I’ve been hesitant to identify as a Christian nationalist for two reasons. The first is that the term “nationalism” is already a loaded term, one filled with revolutionary vigour going back to Jean Jacques Rousseau and the French Revolution, as well as one directly associated with the kinism and ethnic superiority of the Third Reich. The Scriptures however teach of the gradual, progressive advancement of Christ’s kingdom-rule in the earth, by His Spirit and through His people, until the whole of creation as a unity has been redeemed from the curse of sin and has come under His just and righteous rule. The very nature of how the kingdom of God advances is reformational and transformational, not revolutionary. Therefore, to try to modify “nationalism” with “Christian” is just as oxymoronic as trying to modify “conservative” with “progressive.”

            Secondly, while at first the movement was proposed as being a “big tent” within Reformed circles, however, as time has gone on, almost the entire movement has become a reflection of one leader in particular, namely, Stephen Wolfe. Due to his  tremendous influence, good men have been persuaded of his views, and the acceptance of ethnocentric nationalistic and revolutionary thinking has indeed gained traction within Reformed circles because of it.^{[i] [ii]} For example, Wolfe, along with his most enthusiastic and loyal disciples, have actively been promoting the supposed goodness of having a Protestant version of Francisco Franco – the fascist Roman Catholic dictator of Spain from the Spanish Civil War onwards (1939-75) – as the means of bringing in the restoration of Christian civilisation.^{[iii] [iv]} They argue that, since we’ve very clearly reached a breaking point here in the West, we therefore need a Protestant version of Franco, to retake the West for Christ from the top down, and we need it now. Yet, this response does not necessarily follow from the premise, as they claim it does – there are other options besides returning to sacralism and resorting to a dictatorial takeover.

            In light of this, it seems to me to be most appropriate to take a critical look at Mr. Wolfe’s political theory in terms of his foundational worldview assumptions – that is, his assumptions about the nature of knowledge, reality, and ethics – and provide a consistent response from the Word of God. I do this as an elder-pastor, deeply concerned for the welfare of the sheep Christ has placed under my care, as well as those in the broader Reformed community. Throughout this article, I hope to honour Wolfe as a fellow bearer of God’s image by interacting with his own words, as he presents them, as I internally critique his arguments. To this endeavour I now turn.

            Let’s begin with definitions. On pg. 11 of Mr. Wolfe’s book, The Case for Christian Nationalism, he provides his definition of nationalism, “Nationalism refers to a totality of national action, consisting of civil laws and social customs, conducted by a nation, in order to procure for itself both earthly and heavenly good.” He then goes on to make this definition of nationalism “Christian” in this way: “The Gospel does not supersede, abrogate, eliminate, or fundamentally alter generic nationalism; it assumes and completes it.”^[v] Right away, we’re presented with some very specific language, coming from a very particular view of the world – language that needs to be examined.

            Firstly, Wolfe defines nationalism as the “totality of national action, consisting of civil laws and social customs, conducted by a nation.” This seems to imply an all-encompassing notion of what constitutes a nation. Indeed, elsewhere both he and his disciples appeal to what they call an older definition of “nation,” one that rolls into one an ancestral people, their land, social customs, religious beliefs, and cultural artefacts. “Nation” and “ethnicity” are thus used interchangeably. The problem with this is that nation, ethnicity, culture, and cultural artefacts are all biblically distinct categories, and so rolling them all together in one big ball called “nation” or “ethnicity” only serves to bring confusion in this important conversation.

            To begin with, culture – coming from the Latin word, cultus, meaning “worship” – is externalised religion, as Henry Van Til has put it. It’s the application of a people’s foundational faith commitments to their values and choices in the public square. This is exactly what we find Yahweh God originally commanding our first parents to do, first in the garden, then in the rest of the land of Eden, and then to the uttermost parts of the earth. “And God blessed them. And God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens [lit. skies] and over every living thing that moves on the earth [lit. land].’ And God said, ‘Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of the all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food’ ” (Gen. 1:28-29). As a couple covenanted in marriage (cf. Gen. 2:24), Adam and Eve were blessed as God’s image bearers with the command to turn creation into culture that would reflect out into the world the objective beauty, truth, goodness, and sovereignty of their Creator, and to do so by working, keeping, and developing creation in application of God’s eternal, unchanging law, which was written on their hearts as His image bearers (cf. Gen. 2:15, Rom. 2:14-15). As we proceed into Gen. 4 and following, we find man, now corrupted by our first parents’ disobedience in the garden (cf. Gen. 3), continuing to want to turn creation into culture, but now in rebellion against God instead of in glad loyalty to Him. Under the tyranny of sin, the cultural mandate becomes the defamation of Yahweh’s most holy name in the land, instead of the glorification of it as we were created to do. “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31).

            Furthermore, cultural artefacts are the physical objects that may outlive a particular civilisation. This would include buildings, tools, musical instruments, furniture, and clothing. They were created as expressions of the religio-cultural values of the community. We can see the creation of such cultural artefacts in Gen. 4:20-22, “Adah bore Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. His brother’s name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe. Zillah also bore Tubal-cain; he was the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron.” Furthermore, language as a tool of communication can rightly be considered a kind of cultural artefact. To one degree or another, it also serves to reflect the religious foundation of its community as expressed in cultural values and choices.

            And now to the task of biblically distinguishing between the concepts of ethnicity and nation. The first mention of “nations” is in the genealogical listing of the descendants of Noah in Gen. 10. After listing the sons of Japheth, vs. 5 comments, “From these the coastland peoples spread in their lands, each with his own language, by their clans, in their nations.” Likewise, at the conclusion of recording the descendants of Ham, Moses states, “These are the sons of Ham, by their clans, their languages, their lands, and their nations” (vs. 20). We find the same with Shem’s line in vs. 31, “These are the sons of Shem, by their clans, their languages, their lands, and their nations.” In this passage, Moses distinguishes between the Hebrew terms meeshpakha and goi. In this context, meeshpakha means “family” or “clan” and it refers to a people group closely related to one another by way of a common ancestral heritage – this is what we would call an “ethnicity” today. Goi on the other hand means “nation” and it refers to a land with an established civil government, and can include one or multiple families or clans – it’s a geo-political entity. Originally, nations were fortified medium- to large-sized towns, along with their surrounding areas. With time, political covenants were formed between city-states that shared the same values, so that their entire region was collectively considered to be a nation. So for example, the Caananites (family) were from the land of Canaan (nation) and later, the Israelites (family) were from the land of Israel (nation). This distinction between “family” and “nation” is present throughout the Scriptures. Indeed, the term polis, and sometimes ethnos as well, is the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew goi, and conveys the same idea of a city-state, or nation.

            In addition, the way the genealogy in Gen. 10 is structured in grouping the descendants of Noah according to each of his three sons points to male headship being present. Just as Adam our first father represented all those under his covenantal headship, and thereby all have received the curse of spiritual, physical, and eternal death with him, so also Japheth, Ham, and Shem each covenantally represent their descendants, who compose both their families (ethnicities) and nations. This covenantal view of the world is not just contextually present, but also linguistically present. Throughout this passage, every time a people group is mentioned it’s prefixed with ’et, which is the direct object indicator. To what then is the direct object referring? What is its antecedent? Its antecedent is their father, who in turn is the direct descendant of one of Noah’s three sons. Thus, we could rightly describe the Amorites as the “sons of Amor,” or the “sons of Canaan,” or the “sons of Ham” (cf. Gen. 10:15-16). Male headship is built into the very way Hebrew identifies people groups. In addition, a covenantal understanding of the world is theologically built into what constitutes a nation. Moses instructs the second generation of Israel at Deut. 4:5-8, “See, I have taught you statutes and rules, as Yahweh my God commanded me, that you should do them in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. Keep them and do them, for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes will say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’ For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as Yahweh our God is to us, whenever we call upon Him? And what great nation is there, that has statutes and rules so righteous as all this law that I set before you today?” This is fundamentally a call for Israel to be faithful to the covenant Yahweh made with her, in order that the heathen nations around them would see the goodness of God’s law consistently applied in the land, and thus would grow desirous of it and turn from their covenantal loyalties to false gods to serve Yahweh, and would do so as nations. Apart from being in covenant with the one, true, and living God, as a rule a nation won’t experience His blessings in its life as a nation, just as this is also true for individuals, families, and local churches – all that’s left are His judgements for rebellion and unbelief.

            And so, in this way, the Biblical witness stands against one of the two crucial pillars in the foundation of Mr. Wolfe’s entire political theory. God’s Word doesn’t load every aspect of social life into “nation,” treating it as a kind of “junk drawer” term. Rather, the Lord our God treats culture, cultural artefacts, ethnicity, and nations as inter-related yet distinct categories, and therefore so must we. This fundamentally works against Wolfe’s conception of nationalism, since the “totality of national action,” as a geo-political entity, does not in fact “consist of [both its] civil laws and social customs.” This is important because he’s going to use this understanding to justify the state’s intervention in whichever areas of the lives of its citizens it deems “wise” or “prudent” in order to order society back to God. Not only does Wolfe conceive of nations in a way the Bible does not, but the Scriptures do not permit the civil magistrate to be directly responsible for each and every aspect of life in the nation he governs. I hope to demonstrate this explicitly later on in this article.

            Secondly, Wolfe says that the way in which nationalism becomes “Christian” is  “not in the Gospel superseding, abrogating, eliminating, or fundamentally altering generic nationalism; [rather] it assumes and completes it.” He says that the totality of national action conducted by a nation is done so “in order to procure for itself both earthly and heavenly good” – as a Christian nation this means doing so “in Christ.” But, what exactly does he mean by this language? What are these categories of “earthly good” and “heavenly good,” and what does it mean for the gospel to “complete” nationalism?

            Wolfe is operating out of the classic, or mediaeval, understanding of two kingdoms theology. The essence of this view of the world is based in a sharp dichotomy and antithesis between the spiritual parts of creation and the physical. The starting point theologically is the belief that man is created both in God’s image, and in His likeness. The “image of God” in man is said to be what’s natural to him – his reason, free will, and faith. On the other hand, the “likeness of God” is the donum superadditum, the “super-added grace” – this is his moral qualities and supernatural righteousness. Thus, we’re given the categories of “nature” and “grace”, or “supra-nature.” Indeed, the realm of nature does not need grace in order for it to operate properly, meaning our first father Adam’s fall into sin did not affect nature (the image of God), but rather only his supra-nature (the likeness of God).^{[vi] [vii]} This is the entire basis for the Roman Catholic synergistic understanding of salvation – that man must cooperate with God’s grace (unmerited favour) with his unfallen free will and faith in order to be saved from his sin.

            As this nature/grace distinction is worked out into the rest of life, it’s expressed in terms of an internal, eternal kingdom and external, temporal kingdom. The internal, eternal kingdom is the spiritual and heavenly realm, while the external, temporal kingdom is physical and earthly. This is where the sacred/secular distinction comes from, for in this view, the “secular” (of this world) are things outward and temporal and belong to the physical, earthly kingdom, while the “sacred” (of heaven) are things inwards and spiritual and belong to the heavenly kingdom. The governing institution over the earthly kingdom is the state, while the heavenly kingdom is found in and through the institutional church. While Christ rules over both kingdoms, the 10 Commandments as expressed in application throughout the Scriptures is His moral standard in the church, while the 10 Commandments as natural law is expressed in application in the state through man’s unfallen reasoning capacities as he looks out into the world around him.^[viii]

            At this point, there’s almost no difference between the classical view of the two kingdoms, foundational to mediaeval Roman Catholic thought, and its Pietistic version historically found amongst the Lutherans. Anabaptists took an even more radical view than Lutherans by claiming that Christ rules over the heavenly kingdom, while Satan rules over the earthly kingdom. Nevertheless, the real difference between the sacralist and Pietist versions comes on the point of how the spiritual and physical kingdoms relate to each other. On the one hand, Pietists have built a giant, impenetrable wall between the two, leading to a monasticising of the faith inside the four walls of the institutional church, and evangelism then means going into the earthly kingdom to convince people to come back and join them in the heavenly kingdom. This is a religion of cultural retreat and looking to one day escape this world. On the other hand, sacralists have no wall between the two whatsoever, but instead believe that everything in society should be ordered to the church because that’s where spiritual life is administered in Word and sacrament. The civil government is there with the power of the sword to order the earthly kingdom back into the heavenly kingdom, which is found in the institutional church, while the church is there with the power of persuasion to complete the natural goods of the earthly kingdom found in the state with heavenly goods^[ix] – this is sacralism. This means that the state is free to punish those who do not conform to the official teaching and practice of the church, resulting in there being little to no difference between civil and ecclesial due process. Thus, we’ve had such heavy-handed enterprises as the Spanish Inquisitions. This also means that, just as supernatural righteousness was infused into (added onto) what was natural in us at creation, and just as the merits of Christ (and saints) are said to be infused into (added onto) the sinner as he progressively cooperates with grace in his naturally autonomous free will for his justification, so also Christians complete things that are natural and true in the world by infusing into (adding onto) them the spiritual truths of God’s Word. This is how we end up with Christian schools that look identical in content and pedagogy to pagan schools, but what makes them “Christian” is the mere addition of a religion class, or prayer and the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer at the beginning of the day.^[x]

            It is this second, sacralist and classical understanding of the two kingdoms to which Mr. Wolfe holds. While I would hope he doesn’t end up applying this framework to how sinners come to be justified before a holy God, he does affirm the rest of it, including the concept that what’s natural (reason and faith) remain unfallen for all men, while our super-added moral qualities is what needs to be re-attached to us by God’s grace in order for us to be completed. In an interview on the Conversations That Matter podcast, Wolfe stated, “Christ has infused reason into all men, such that pagans have wisdom and we should listen to them.”^[xi] Wolfe is saying that reason is natural to all men and essentially, if not completely, unaffected by the fall, and therefore a pagan’s wisdom is just as valid and true as a believer’s. If this is not the mediaeval Roman Catholic distinction between the image and likeness of God, which is the entire grounds for their doctrine of the freedom of the will, I don’t know what is! Indeed, this is diametrically opposed to the apostle Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 1:20-31 where, by the moving the Holy Spirit, he says that the wisdom of the pagan world is actually foolish to God, and true wisdom can only be found in and through the Wisdom of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. And yet, this two kingdoms framework is Wolfe’s explicitly stated foundation for his political philosophy, which he calls “Christian Nationalism.”^[xii]

            Now, the question is, “From where does this nature/grace distinction originate, and is it actually reflective of the worldview we find in Scripture?” To the first part of this question, the main mediaeval systematiser of the nature/grace duality was Thomas Aquinas. He was an Italian Dominican monk who lived during the 13^th C. After studying in France, he was commissioned by Pope Clement IV to serve as papal theologian whereupon he attempted to synthesise Greek philosophical categories, primarily drawing upon Aristotle, with the teaching of Holy Scripture.^[xiii] Thus, the Hellenistic categories of “form” and “matter” became “nature” and “grace” in Thomas’ natural theology, and this in turn became the basis of Roman Catholic theology as it developed through the Middle Ages. The Dutch Christian philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd ably demonstrates the progression of this pagan-Christian synthesis through the course of mediaeval scholasticism.^[xiv]

            Now, the main problem with Thomas’ synthesis is that the pagan worldview of the Greeks and that of God’s Word are diametrically opposed to each other. Aristotle, like most Greeks of his time, was immersed in a pagan, Gnostic worldview that taught that the goal was escaping from the base, physical realm into the higher, spiritual realm, and means to doing so was through gaining secret knowledge from an oracle or priest. In Greek thought, deities were a part of creation – just a higher, more powerful breed – and so they also were subject to this same cosmological duality. In Aristotle’s philosophical application of this worldview via “form” and “matter,” he ended up concluding that the state must be the totalising principle in society, and so believed that totalitarianism was the ultimate form of civil government.^[xv]

            Yet, all this is entirely antithetical to the Hebraic worldview presented in the pages of Holy Writ. To deal with the launching point in the nature/grace distinction, we must ask ourselves, “Does Scripture itself place the mutually exclusive categorical distinction on the physical and spiritual aspects of creation, or does it place it somewhere else?” I would argue strongly that it places it somewhere else, and that somewhere else is the categorical distinction between the Creator and His creation – a creational order that’s  fundamentally an integrated unity.

            To begin with, is it possible to drive a wedge between the image and likeness of God, as Dr. Wolfe does in following mediaeval scholastic thought? Can we neatly separate faith, free will, and reason into the category of what’s natural and the image of God, while placing super-added moral virtues in the category of what’s graciously given – the likeness of God? Moses records in narrating the creation of mankind on the sixth day, “Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Gen. 1:26-27). According to Yahweh’s own words here at the beginning of the world, He’s clearly using “image” and “likeness” as interchangeable terms. Again, this synonymous usage comes up just a few chapters later at the beginning of the genealogy following the line of Seth, “This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. Male and female He created them, and He bless them and named them Man when they were created” (Gen. 5:1-2). In addition, in renewing the cultural mandate with mankind, in a post-fall, post-diluvian world, the Lord says, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in His image” (Gen. 9:6). Notice that intrinsic dignity, value, and worth of a man, which is represented by his lifeblood, is present because “God made man in His image.” Likewise, Eccl. 9:29 reflects, “See, this alone I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes.” If the mediaeval nature/grace divide was true, this should read, “God made man and added uprightness to him.” But, that’s not what it says. Why? God created man as a whole person, body and spirit together as a unity, in His likeness/image. This is reflected in the Westminster Confession of Faith at 4.2, “After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after his own image.” This is a clear move away from the dualistic thinking of mediaeval scholasticism towards a more robustly biblical anthropology. Indeed, the doctrine of total depravity, as articulated two chapters later, is theologically dependent on this integrated view of man – “By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body” (WCF, 6.2).

            Furthermore, the intrinsic integration of man is reflected in the Hebrew term nephesh, which is most often translated as “soul.” In Greek dualistic thought that prioritised the spiritual over the physical, the “soul” was thought to be the immaterial part of a person – the true self, temporarily dwelling in the shell of a material body.^[xvi] However, the biblical and Hebraic conception of nephesh, or “soul,” is the whole person as a unity. For example, the person of David was a living soul, compromised of the integration of a material aspect (body) and an immaterial aspect (spirit). For this reason, David cried out in Ps. 17:13-14, “Arise, O Yahweh! Confront him, subdue him! Deliver my soul from the wicked by Your sword, from men by Your hand, O Yahweh, from men of the world whose portion is in this life.” Obviously he wasn’t just interested in having his spirit rescued from his enemies, but rather his entire person. Truly, this conception of man as a soul goes all the way back to Gen. 2:7, where Moses records by the Spirit, “then Yahweh God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature [lit. ‘a living soul’].” This is why, in light of the fall, the entire person needs to be redeemed by Christ from sin, not merely his spiritual aspect – “For as by a man came death, by a Man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:21-22). Redeemed man must have the likeness of the Son of God restored in him in every respect, as far as it’s possible for a finite creature to image his infinite Lord and Creator.

            Now, similar to how two kingdoms theology, in its various and sundry permutations, treats its anthropology as the focal point of its cosmology, so also we find this in Scripture. Just as man is an integrated soul – material and immaterial together as a unity – so too this is true of the created order as a whole. For this reason, in contravention of proto-Gnostic thinking beginning to take root in his day, St. Paul forcefully declares to the church in Colossae, “For in Him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of the cross” (Col. 1:19-20). Jesus has come to rescue creation as a unity from the effects of sin and death, not just the spiritual, immaterial aspects. Likewise, in hope-filled expectation of the consummation of this cosmic redemption on the Last Day, the apostle directly parallels the resurrection of the whole of creation with the resurrection of our bodies. “For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage and corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies” (Rom. 8:20-23).

            What has been demonstrated then, is that the worldview revealed in God’s holy Word stands in direct opposition to the inherent dualism of Wolfe’s sacralist political theory. The two are mutually exclusive, and trying to read Scripture through the nature/grace paradigm only leads to the creation of many multi-headed monsters, not the least of which is setting up man’s supposedly unfallen reason as an extra-biblical and subjective standard by which to naturally and rightly conclude from the world around him how to order society in ways that seem best to him, and are therefore supposedly pleasing God. As a developed political philosophy, this can, and has historically had, deadly consequences. Indeed, it provides just the right framework for justifying all manner of state tyranny, since there is no delimiting factor built into the system. Under these parameters, the state is allowed to use its natural common sense reasoning to order the earthly kingdom back into the heavenly kingdom, which is found in and through the institutional church.

            And this leads to my final critique of Dr. Wolfe’s political theory, namely, his endorsement and use of Carl Schmitt’s work. There is a reason why he argues in favour of revolutionary action to forcibly remove a tyrant from political power, only to install a Christian prince in his place, despite attempting to frame his argument in terms of Protestant resistance theory.^[xvii] There is a reason why he thinks such a Christian prince ought to be a Protestant version of Francisco Franco, the nationalist general during the Spanish Civil War who forcibly restored order in Spain through overthrowing the Second Spanish Republic and assuming himself as her fascist dictator from 1939-1975.^[xviii] Indeed, he argues we need “a measured and theocratic Caesarism – the prince as as a world-shaker for our time, who brings a Christian people to self-consciousness and who, in his rise, restores their will for their good.”^[xix] And there is a reason why Wolfe’s disciples have strong kinist leanings, and antisemitism has become a big enough problem in Reformed circles that the Antioch Declaration was necessary to be crafted and published. It seems the reference point for all these commonalities – commonalities involving Stephen Wolfe no less – is Carl Schmitt. In this last section, I am relying heavily on Nathan Zekveld’s research, presented in his article, Book Review – Political Theology by Carl Schmitt.^[xx]

            Foundational to Schmitt’s political thought was the notion that “the sovereign is he who decides on the exception” (Carl Schmitt, Political Theology [Chicago: the University of Chicago Press, 1985],  5). He envisioned the “sovereign” as God’s political representative on earth, not to uphold God’s laws as the norm to govern society, but rather to independently make decisions from situation to situation – his Roman Catholic background comes through on this point. He then defines an exception as “any kind of severe economic or political disturbance that requires the application of extraordinary measures” (Ibid). In this way, he believed that “all law is ‘situational law’ ” (Ibid, 13), and thus the state’s authority fundamentally rests in the sovereign’s monopoly in making decisions in any given situation.

            Furthermore, Schmitt argued that the state sovereign ought to be a dictator, over-against the traditional monarchy. With such a dictator, this kind of situation-by-situation decision making could take place, with the political and judicial power needed to make it happen. In this view, everything is political and flows downstream from the political decisions of the state sovereign. Indeed, in order for the sovereign be able to maintain control of the populous, Schmitt created a friend/enemy distinction. Where Georg Hegel created a dialectical model that became central to Marxists advancing their revolution on the Left, Carl Schmitt created his friend/enemy dialectic on the Right for maintaining nationalist control and identity. In an X post on 30 Nov. 2023, Stephen Wolfe quoted him as saying, “The concept of humanity is an especially useful ideological instrument of imperialist expansion, and in its ethical-humanitarian form it is a specific vehicle of economic imperialism. Here one is reminded of a somewhat modified expression of Proudhon’s: whoever invokes humanity wants to cheat. To confiscate the word humanity, to invoke and monopolise such a term probably has certain incalculable effects, such as denying the enemy the quality of being human and declaring him to be an outlaw of humanity; and a war can thereby be driven to the most extreme inhumanity.”^[xxi] In other words, unlike great leaders of old who treated their enemies with dignity, value, and worth, even when wronged by them, Schmitt frames friends as humans like himself, and enemies as non-human, or sub-human, and therefore they’re worthy of ridicule and torture. This means that, in his way of thinking, it’s entirely acceptable to dehumanise one’s enemies, no matter if they be real or perceived.

            This is Schmitt’s political theology/philosophy in a nutshell. It was foundational in forming the ideology of the Nazi Party in Germany leading up to and including WWII. And this is the godless, anti-biblical ideology that Stephen Wolfe promotes on social media,^[xxii] and which entirely maps onto his mediaeval, sacral political theology. The reason it maps onto his two kingdoms theology so well is that, despite Schmitt’s move right into the arms of the Third Reich in his adult years, the religious framework from which he was drawing was that of his Roman Catholic upbringing. Thomas Aquinas’ nature/grace distinction, as formulated through mediaeval scholastic theology, provides the Scriptural-sounding framework necessary for Christians – particularly historic-minded Reformed Christians who want to see society change to once again openly acknowledge the Lordship of Christ – to not only embrace sacralism, but also embrace Schmittian ideology, and do so without necessarily realising what is happening. As a demonstration that this is precisely what’s been happening, consider the following: How many well-meaning Christians have begun to embrace NETTR (“No Enemies to the Right”) due to the influence of Wolfe and his disciples, when NETTR is really just Schmitt’s friend/enemy dialectic repackaged to sound appealing to those who oppose the Left’s cultural Marxist revolution?^[xxiii] How many of their followers on X have begun using Franco’s portrait, or that of a Crusader, tinted with a red background and blue laser-beamed eyes, all in the name of wanting a Christian prince, when really what they’re doing is unwittingly promoting Schmitt’s notion of the “sovereign”?^[xxiv] Indeed, while correlation does not necessarily equal causation, the relevant evidence overwhelmingly points to a situation where Wolfe has repackaged Schmitt in sacralist two kingdoms terms, and then sold it to historically-minded Reformed Christians who desire societal change in an explicitly Christian direction as being “truly Reformed.” As Doug Wilson has rightly put it, “All ideas have ancestors and descendants.” Indeed, “the proof of the pudding is in the eating,” as the old adage goes. As our Lord taught us, “Thus you will recognise them by their fruits” (Matt. 7:20).

            The primary problem with both Schmitt and Wolfe at this point is that they allow the state to act in a god-like capacity, and apart from any real accountability. There is no structural delimiting factor to the role of the state and the civil magistrate in both their views. Nevertheless, in contrast we see this principle at work in Samuel the prophet’s stern warning to Israel in response to their request for a king like the all the nations around them, “So Samuel told all the words of Yahweh to the people who were asking for a king from him. He said, ‘These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen and to run before his chariots. And he will appoint for himself commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants. He will take your male servants and female servants and the best of your young men and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cray out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but Yahweh will not answer you in that day” (1 Sam. 8:10-18).

            What does Samuel say is a curse on a nation? The first is a civil government that conscripts its citizens to all manner of military service, rather than inviting them to volunteer on point of principle. This is fundamentally to turn free citizens into wards of the state – if they love true justice and the God of justice, they won’t need to be forced into serving their country in this way. The second curse is when the governing authorities outright enslave its citizens to serve their everyday needs. This is man-stealing – a fundamental denial of the inherent dignity, value, and worth of others who are also made in the image of almighty God – and biblically carries the death penalty as its maximum penalty (cf. Ex. 21:16). The third curse is that of expropriation, which is fundamentally theft of the privately owned property of its citizens. This again means the state is treating its populous as wards of the state, and is a violation of the 8^th Commandment, “You shall not steal” (Ex. 20:15) as it pertains to the rightfully owned property of image bearers. This is why property tax is fundamentally immoral, since it functions to keep citizens enslaved to the state, so that it can then steal from them. Finally, the prophet by the Spirit of God says that it’s a curse for the state to tax its citizens 10%. To do so is to attempt to take the place of Yahweh as the ultimate authority over all men and the only One worthy to be worshipped, and to do so by exacting the tithe, which Yahweh requires in true worship as a firstfruits offering of thanksgiving. In fact, He considers it robbery when the tithe is not diligently and joyfully given to Him in worship as He rightfully deserves, and this becomes a curse on the people in the sight of the nations (cf. Mal. 3:6-12). Therefore, to tax 10% is fundamentally idolatry of the state and, to the degree that the civil governing authorities view themselves in this light, and so tax their citizens accordingly, to that degree the nation they govern experiences the curse of the Lord’s judgement upon them. And so, these types of curses on a nation due to the tyranny of her rulers are expressions of God’s righteous judgement upon her. All of this is in keeping with the teaching of Deut. 17:14-20, which forcefully makes the point that the king is under God’s law, in both his life and rule, just the same as everyone else.

            What we have here is Almighty God’s radical delimitation on the state, as one sphere of human authority among others, all of which are derivative of and subservient to His ultimate, unlimited authority – they are in no way equal to or independent of His holy governance. “Yahweh has established His throne in the heavens, and His kingdom rules over all” (Ps. 103:19). Truly, King Jesus’ Messianic kingdom-rule is the one and only totalising principle over all of society, and all human spheres of authority and responsibility – whether self-, familial, ecclesial, or civil government – are without exception subservient to Him and His holy rule over all the nations.

            We find this same principle developed further in the NT. In one of several clashes with the Pharisees, some of their disciples sought to trip Jesus up by pitting Caesar’s authority against God’s as it concerned paying taxes. Asking for a Roman coin, and then holding it up, He asked, “ ‘Whose likeness and inscription is this?’ They said, ‘Caesar’s.’ Then He said to them, ‘Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s’ ” (Matt. 22:20-21). This is all about whose image is imprinted, and therefore giving what is rightfully due to that ultimate authority. As the true ultimate authority, Yahweh’s likeness is imprinted in each one of us, and therefore we give Him what’s rightfully due His holy name by treating one another according to the way He’s created us in His image, male and female, with dignity, value, and worth as per His holy law. Yet, at the same time, the civil magistrate is a lesser authority under our Lord’s totalising authority, with a specific jurisdiction that He’s given him within this broader context – his specific responsibility is to uphold justice through punishing crimes in society and to defend against tangible threats to national sovereignty (cf. Rom. 13:1-7). As far as the state is faithful to function as a servant of the Most High in this capacity, Jesus says we’re obligated to pay the taxes required of us for it to be able to do this.

            Likewise, our Lord delimits and distinguishes between the covenantal jurisdictions of civil and ecclesial governance when He reapplies the civil due process of Deut. 19 within the context of the local church in Matt. 18. In Deut. 19:15-21, Moses taught that, only on the basis of two or three independent lines of witness and testimony, as cross-examined in a law court before a plurality of judges to establish truthfulness, is any charge to be established. He specifically forbids the judges, as well as those meting out the penalty due the wrongdoer, from showing pity. For what reason? Because the duty of the civil magistrate is the exacting of proportional retributive justice, and showing partiality to any degree is a perversion of that justice (cf. Lev. 19:15-16).

            Now, when Jesus reapplies this to ecclesial due process, He takes the same elements, but reframes it in terms of the congregation’s restorative function. In Matt. 18:15-20, Messiah teaches that, only on the basis of two or three independent lines of witness and testimony, as cross-examined in a church court before a plurality of elder-pastors to establish truthfulness, is any charge to be established. When we consider what St. Paul teaches about the purpose of excommunication – “to deliver [the wrongdoer] to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord” (1 Cor. 5:5) – we can see that treating the convicted wrongdoer as an unbeliever cut off from the covenant community is actually a mercy to him, one designed for his restoration to Christ and His body.

            In this way then, it’s quite clear that our Lord delineates between the duty of the state in its God-given responsibility to uphold retributive justice in society, and the duty of the institutional church in its God-given role to administer restorative mercy. Indeed, as with other God-given spheres of human authority, the state and the church possess authority to carry out their duties only to the extent that King Jesus has delegated authority unto them, and not an inch further. It is His Messianic kingdom-rule that’s the only truly totalising principle in all creation, for He alone possesses infinite power, authority, and dominion over all the nations.

            Here then is the key point that both Carl Schmitt and Stephen Wolfe have strayed away from and obscured in how they view the state, for they will not delimit the state with God’s holy delimitations, which He’s revealed in His holy Word – indeed, they have cut the brake lines altogether and thrown away the pads, as it were. This is the result of creating an ethical standard that’s wholly subjective and operates independently from the purposes of Christ’s kingdom-rule in the earth, as revealed in the pages of Scripture. This is what Thomas Aquinas’ nature/grace distinction, as delivered through mediaeval speculative theological development, has allowed them to do in seeking to apply this dualistic framework to the life of the civil and political realm. It has allowed them to justify an ever-expanding, tyrannical, and kinist state, and all ostensibly in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is a massive problem, one that cannot be ignored.

            As I close this article, it’s important to remember that God graciously gave us a book – a 66-book library that’s meant to shape the way we view all of life under King Jesus, and the way we’re meant to live under His holy rule. R.J. Rushdoony put it well when he said, “God’s law is given to us to obey, not to consider.” His point is not that we shouldn’t carefully consider how it treats itself, what it means, and how it then applies to our lives today – surely, we ought to do that most diligently, and in concert with the Church down through the ages. Instead, his point is that God’s law-Word is not one good option for how to live in His world among others – it is the one and only option and there is no other. God’s Word is binding on all men because all men have been created in His image and live in His good world. Indeed, it is the perfect lens through which we must view all of life, a lens we cannot live without. Let us therefore be doers of the Word in its totality and not hearers only.

^[i] X, Stephen Wolfe, https://x.com/PerfInjust/status/1647931701773860865.

^[ii] X, Eric Conn, https://x.com/Eric_Conn/status/1876280655061176698.

^[iii] X, Joshua Lisec, Ghostwriter, https://x.com/JoshuaLisec/status/1874888590469296589.

^[iv] X, Eric Conn, https://x.com/Eric_Conn/status/1874604471764041925.

^[v] Stephen Wolfe, The Case for Christian Nationalism (Moscow, ID: Canon Press), 11.

^[vi] Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity, Nature, Grace & Church & State ft. Stephen C. Perks [Christianity & Politics], www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLqgSdbBlll&t=879s.

^[vii] McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia, Donum Superadditum, Or Supernaturalè, https://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/D/donum-superadditum-or-supernatural_.html.

^[viii] Conversations That Matter, Protestant Two Kingdoms Theology, www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOQSG6mmr6l.

^[ix] Ibid.

^[x] Abounding Grace Radio, Wolfe vs. Gordon: A Critical Conversation on Christian Nationalism, www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEbSkmX0iQk.

^[xi] Conversations That Matter, Protestant Two Kingdoms Theology, www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOQSG6mmr6l.

^[xii] Stephen Wolfe, The Case for Christian Nationalism, 299-309.

^[xiii] Britannica, St. Thomas Aquinas, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Thomas-Aquinas.

^[xiv] Herman Dooyeweerd, Roots of Western Culture (Grand Rapids: Paideia Press, 2012), 111-147.

^[xv] Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity, Nature, Grace & Church & State ft. Stephen C. Perks [Christianity & Politics], www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLqgSdbBlll&t=879s.

^[xvi] Herman Dooyeweerd, Roots of Western Culture, 112.

^[xvii] Stephen Wolfe, The Case for Christian Nationalism, 277-352.

^[xviii] Britannica, Francisco Franco, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Francisco-Franco.

^[xix] Stephen Wolfe, The Case for Christian Nationalism, 279.

^[xx] Nathan Zekveld, Book Review – Political Theology by Carl Schmitt, https://nathanzekveld.substack.com/p/book-review-political-theology-by?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1822683&post_id=157778585&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=14nbo7&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email.

^[xxi] X, Stephen Wolfe, https://x.com/PerfInjust/status/1730216407298642336.

^[xxii] X, Stephen Wolfe, https://x.com/PerfInjust/status/1890075041766822113.

^[xxiii] X, Eric Conn, https://x.com/Eric_Conn/status/1712187714265887185.

^[xxiv] X, Eric Conn, https://x.com/Eric_Conn/status/1874604471764041925.