“Mere Christendom” by Doug Wilson (A Book Analysis Series: Part 5)–Chapters 10-13

Here in Part 5 of my book analysis of Doug Wilson’s Mere Christendom, I’m going to kick it into high gear and attempt to address his entire Part 3: “Lies About Mere Christendom.” Part 3 covers four chapters…and I haven’t even covered the last two chapters in Part 2 yet! Can I do it all within 2,500 words? Let’s find out.

A Quick Summary of Chapters 8-9
Chapter 8 (“Church and State) and Chapter 9 (“All Liberty is Founded in Christ”) can be summarized as follows, via bullet-points.

1. Wilson doesn’t want a medieval version of Christendom, where those in power forcefully imposed their particular brand of Christianity on other people.
2. Wilson says (correctly, actually) that the first amendment prohibits the federal government from establishing a national church. It isn’t prohibiting local and state civil authorities from the Lordship of Jesus.
3. Wilson asserts true liberty can only be found and maintained in some model of “mere Christendom,” because Christianity maintains the importance of a limited government, so that human governments are not allowed to trample one’s freedoms. Secularism, by contrast, ultimate allows the government to claim all authority, and human beings, when in a position of unchecked power, will always seek to maintain and expand their power at the expense of others. He writes, “The real reason why our current rulers want us to react violently whenever we hear the word theocracy is that petty gods are always jealous of their positions and dread any talk of a Lord who rose from the dead” (124).

As far as (1) goes, good to hear. What I have often been told is that “Christian nationalists” are seeking to forcibly impose their Christian beliefs on others. Apparently, Wilson is against that. As for (2) yes, technically correct, but back in the 18^th century, the populace of the new states was overwhelmingly European and Christian. The current make-up of the United States isn’t that anymore. Using this logic, if a particular town, city, or even state got a majority Muslim or Hindu population, then that town, city, or state then would be able to publicly acknowledge Allah, or Krishna. I don’t think Doug Wilson would be okay with that. Finally, as for (3) Wilson is right that a government with unchecked power will inevitably gravitate toward trampling on the rights of people, sure.

Basically, Wilson seems to want the United States to be the way it was back up before the 20^th century, a “formally” and thus nominally, “Christian” nation with much more limited government than it is now. Now, let’s move on to a lightning-fast summary of Part 3 of Wilson’s book…

PART 3: Lies About Mere Christendom

Chapter 10: “Christendom Would be Oppressive”
In this chapter, as the subtitle suggests, Wilson addresses the claim that if we had “mere Christendom” in America, that it would be oppressive. If I was to summarize his entire argument in this chapter, it would be this: The excesses and abuses within secularism are far worse. He states, “Being lectured on our potential ‘oppressions’ from today’s statists is like being lectured on public hygiene by Typhoid Mary” (132).

Wilson doesn’t suggest that a “Christian” America would not be without its problems. He openly acknowledges past manifestations of “mere Christendom” (Constantine’s empire; Puritan rule in England; the Reformers themselves) had major problems and setbacks. Still, he insists that, “Christians invented the most open and tolerant society in the history of the world. Tolerance, as we have known it historically, is a Christian virtue” (133).

As a side note, I recently watched a video in which he was interviewed, in which he attempts to put the problems in past “Christendoms” into perspective. He notes that thousands of people where killed during the Inquisition over the span of a few hundred years—that was bad. A clear black spot on Christendom. In comparison, though, he notes the millions upon millions of killings that happened at the hands of secular or atheistic governments in the 20^th century alone.

His point is simple: Yes, there will be problems and bad things within any Christendom, but they will be miniscule in comparison to the horrific problems we’ve seen in secular governments in the 20^th century. Historically speaking, that’s actually true. Still, that argument isn’t actually “positive,” is it?

In any case, at one point, Wilson opines about how great things were in 1950s America, which he calls “a truly open and free society” (134). Another weak and pointless claim. Sure, in some areas, we can say 1950s America was better of than 2024 America…but at least we don’t have open lynchings and Jim Crow laws now, do we? Yes, one could come back and point out how much worse minority communities in the inner cities are today compared to back then…but what’s the point? Wilson isn’t making any kind of coherent argument here. He’s just opining for some kind of Roy Rogers, Howdy-Doody fantasy of his childhood. There’s nothing wrong with Howdy-Doody–we simply aren’t living in the 50s anymore. And to quote Nick Carraway in The Great Gatsby, “You can’t repeat the past.”

Wilson also points out that the Founding Father John Adams said that the Constitution “presupposes a moral and religious people” and that it is “wholly unfit for any other [kind of people]” (134). Wilson’s point is just that: the democratic republic of the United States and the system of government outlined in the Constitution can only work successfully with a society of moral and religious people. I think it goes without saying that when Adams said “religious people,” he was probably referring to Christians. Honestly, in the long term, I think John Adams (and Wilson) are right. I do think we are witnessing in our current society a deterioration of our societal fabric, and I do think that coincides with the decidedly secularizing nature of things today.

Chapter 11: “The Biblical Necessity of Free Speech”
The overall gist that Wilson is getting at in this chapter is that the idea of free speech and religious toleration is the fruit of Christianity, and that true freedom and liberty can only flourish in which the gospel has pervasive influence. He writes that both with Constantine’s advisor Lactantius and the Bill of Rights, “Letting other people express their errors without fear of reprisal is a distinctively Christian ideal” (143). Wilson also argues that even though some Founding Fathers were Deists, most were Christian.

He also states that in every society some kind of morality is going to be imposed through the laws and general social norms: “It is not whether we will impose morality, but rather which morality we will impose” (143). To be fair, that is going to be inevitably true to some extent.

Wilson also addresses the charge against Christian Nationalism that all Christians want to do is impose Old Testament Law on today’s society. Indeed, that is what I had been told before I read Wilson’s book. Wilson, though, says that is not the case. He is not for “…picking up the Mosaic code with a huge grappling hook and plonking it down in the middle of the year of our Lord 2022” (154).  Rather, he argues that in its original context, Old Testament Law was a good thing, therefore what we should do is seek to apply the principles found in Old Testament Law. To be honest, that is how I’ve always approached the legal material in the Old Testament. The OT Law was for ancient Israel, not us today; but because we believe God is moral and good, the underlying principles found in the OT Law would be applicable to how we try to have a moral and just society today.

Wilson ends the chapter by saying we need to embrace, “the biblical doctrine of the nature of man, which means limited government, separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism, which in turn means a removal of many of the temptations to bring in the kingdom with a sword” (158). Now, I think limited government, separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism are all good things. If Wilson means that, given the sinful nature of man, these things consist of a good form of government to keep our sinful natures in check, I agree. But if Wilson is arguing these things are someone “found in the Bible,” well, they aren’t.

One final thing in this chapter worth noting is how Wilson says Christians are to “conquer” society and culture. Again, I had been taught that Christian Nationalists want some kind of military takeover for Jesus. Wilson, though, says that Christians “conquer through the Word and water, bread and wine” (160). I take that to mean that the Church “conquers” society through the transformative life it offers that comes through the spreading of the Gospel (the Word), Baptism (water), and Communion (bread and wine). That is simply the Great Commission.

Chapter 12: “Restrain the Worst Blasphemers First”
In addition to the term “Christian Nationalism,” Wilson likes the term “Theocratic Libertarianism” to define his beliefs. Basically, that means that in a society that acknowledges the Lordship of Christ (theocratic) people will able to be truly free, with the least amount of government interference, because there will be limited government (libertarianism).

Wilson also reiterates that the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost signaled more of an “offensive strategy” to the Jesus movement: “The gift of the Spirit at Pentecost signaled a transition from defense to offense. That first glorious day was a preview of coming attractions” (171). He sees that the Church’s job, if you will, is to go out and make disciples of all nations. And that, Wilson argues, will ultimately have an effect on nations and societies, hopefully to make them into more Christian nations and societies.

Wilson again reiterates the importance of free speech in a free society: “I don’t believe in free speech because I think that everybody has something valuable to say. No, I believe that all men and women are bad sinners, and it shows up in their speech” (171). That, I have to admit, is an important point. And that is why I am against the recent efforts in our society to quell free speech. “Oh, but hate speech is hurtful and damaging to some people.” Okay, but then we get a clear picture of the kinds of people who say those things and we can work, with our own free speech, to convince members in our free society to reject such nonsense.

Finally, Wilson again returns to the idea of Christians “conquering” society. Again, he emphasizes its not in the way people who rail against Christian Nationalism way Christian Nationalists want to conquer: “So, Abraham and his see will in fact inherit the world. But we will not do it through law. It is the proclamation of gospel truth that will do it” (174). Simply put, Wilson says Christians “conquer” by fulfilling the great commission. Laws and customs will naturally flow out from that transformed society. There is no need, or intention, to try to “force” Christianity on a society.

There is nothing worth noting in Chapter 13–it is all of two pages.

Conclusion Thus Far (With One Post to Go)
Once again, while reading Wilson’s book, I find myself realizing that what I have been told about Christian Nationalism is not really the same as the way Wilson is describing Christian Nationalism. That doesn’t mean I agree with the entirety of what he says in his book, but it does mean that I feel that the current paranoia I’ve seen in some circles about how “Christian Nationalism” is some kind of white supremacist, militant, Handmaid’s Tale kind of threat to the country is more about a caricature of Christian Nationalism, rather than the thing that Wilson is describing. I’ve literally read nothing in Wilson’s book like that.

Wilson, it seems to me, is an extremely conservative Christian who looks back to the 1950s through rose-colored glasses and opines that back then we were much more of a Christian nation than we are today. Okay—but I’ve seen nothing yet in his book that suggests he wants to do anything that I’ve been told by others that Christian nationalists want to do (i.e. violent take over, imposing Christianity on people, etc.). All I’ve seen is Wilson basically saying, “Our current secularized culture is more godless, and the government has too much power. The Church needs to preach the Gospel and change hearts and minds. If we do that, we will have a more Christian society that reflects Christian morality more than it does now.”