“Mere Christendom” by Douglas Wilson: A Book Analysis Series (Part 4)–Chapters 5-7: Making the Case for “Christian Nationalism”

Chapter 5 in Douglas Wilson’s book, Mere Christendom turns a corner from Part 1, which was an assessment of what Wilson says is wrong with our current society in America, to Part 2, where Wilson begins to make the case for “Christian Nationalism.” If you’ve noticed in my first three posts, I haven’t defined exactly what that means because Wilson hasn’t defined what that means. Well, we’re now at the point in Mere Christendom where he does just that. Let’s see what he has to say in chapters 5-7.

Chapter 5: “What is Mere Christendom?”
At the very beginning of Chapter 6, Wilson explains what he means by “mere Christendom”: “A network of nations bound together by a formal, public, civic acknowledgment of the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and the fundamental truth of the Apostle’ Creed” and “…a public and formal recognition of the authority of Jesus Christ that repudiates the principles of secularism, and that avoids both hard sectarianism and easy latitudinarianism both” (69).

Wilson says he is not proposing that there be any established church or tax-supported denominations, but he does want a formal adoption of the Apostles’ Creed. He anticipates the objection to having such a theocracy and says that all societies are ultimately theocratic anyway, “…with the only thing distinguishing them being the nature and attributes of the reigning ‘theos’” (72).

Stemming from that, Wilson says that would mean agencies like the EPA, IRS, the Department of Education, etc. would all be abolished, that the scope and functions of the federal government would be greatly “downsized or redirected,” and that there would be a “constitutional process” of reform that would seek to further limit the power of the rulers in government (things like term limits in Congress, and a “none of the above” option on ballots).

As for “culture wars,” Wilson says they should be “fought in the culture, not in the courts,” meaning that no particular cultural faction should be able to use government power and the force of law to coerce others and “skew the outcomes in their favor” (74). He writes, “The law should protect life, liberty, and property. After that, the alternative visions for truth, goodness, and beauty may freely compete” (74).  He argues that that kind of “free competition” is a “Christian value,” and says he wants liberty for secularists because Jesus is Lord and he, as a Christian, does not think it would be right to force secularists to “confess something they don’t believe” (75).

Wilson ends Chapter 6 by portraying the fundamental choice between Christ and Herod. He writes, “If you will not have Christ-sons for rulers, then you have made your choice—you will have the Herod-apes for rulers” (79). And although Wilson says that politicians in both parties are responsible for the current state of the federal government, he singles out Joe Biden, since he is the head of the government. He writes, “He, and the way of governance he represents, is necessarily stained with the blood of children. The only alternative is to be cleansed with the blood of the Child” (81).

Joel’s Reaction
So, Wilson thinks that a “formal declaration” on a national level of the Apostles’ Creed is the key to a thriving society. At best, all that would do is to make the United States a nominally Christian nation in name only. It would have about as much impact as putting “In God We Trust” on the money. To that extent, most of the time throughout our history there have been “formal” recognition to the Christian faith in government—the national prayer breakfast, chaplains who open sessions of Congress with formal prayers. Wilson seems to think this formal declaration will stem the tide of the godless secularization of the country. I find that incredibly naïve. There are plenty examples of nations and kingdom who declare allegiance to Christ whose leaders still engage in absolutely horrible and unchristian behavior. A formal recognition does nothing when it comes to being truly Christian.

As for Wilson’s call to drastically reduce the size of government, I actually agree that a whole lot of agencies could and should be either drastically cut or abolished altogether. But what does that have to do with actual Christianity? It is just common sense. It isn’t just conservative Christians who believe our government has ballooned into a very dangerous bureaucracy with far too much power.

As for Wilson’s comments about “culture war” debates, I think he makes a decent point. Case in point, Jordan Peterson came to the public spotlight when he objected to a Canadian bill that would make it a crime to “misgender” someone. He claimed that was an abuse of power by the government—it should not mandate and force certain types of speech on people. He didn’t say he wouldn’t honor someone’s wishes on a personal level; he just objected to the government forcing speech and criminalizing certain speech. For that he was called a Nazi. He’s still being attacked. Wilson’s point here, therefore, is valid: the government has certain fields of responsibility to govern. There are other things in our culture it has no business sticking its nose in. That inevitably leads to corruption and an abuse of power.

Finally, Wilson’s comments about Christ or Herod—clever hyperbole, but ultimately oversimplistic, needlessly incendiary, and not helpful.

Chapter 6: “A Brief Scattershot Primer on Christian Nationalism”
In this relatively short chapter, Wilson begins by speaking to the use of labels and “naming” in the culture wars. Labelling someone with a pejorative is meant to be a way of demonizing them and shutting them up. Wilson says that nowadays conservative Christians are labeled with names like white supremacist, theo-fascist, religious extremist, and of course, Christian nationalist. To that, he says, “I am a Christian, and I do love my nation. Now what?” His point is that labels and pejoratives utterly say nothing at all and contribute nothing to national debate over national issues. At the same time, he acknowledges that this kind of labeling and name-calling is not just a problem on one side of the political aisle. He writes, “Driving your pick-up around town with that huge Trump flag flapping on one side and the Let’s Go Brandon in the original Greek waving on the other…isn’t helping anything” (85). [Okay, that’s funny…and true].

While calling for America to be a “Christian nation,” Wilson rejects the neo-con notion of “American exceptionalism.” He calls it an idolatrous construct. Still, he does argue that at its founding, America had deep ties to Christianity. Nine of the thirteen states who adopted the Constitution had official ties to a Christian denomination, and (according to Wilson—I didn’t take the time to fact check him) fifty of the fifty-five men at the Constitutional Convention were “orthodox Christians” (not the actually branch of Eastern Orthodoxy, obviously!). For Wilson, “[E]veryone who subscribes to the Westminster Confession of Faith is a Christian nationalist” (89).

He ends Chapter 6 by addressing the idea of “the Judeo-Christian tradition.” It isn’t an actual single religion—Judaism and Christianity are clearly different. Still, both religions make “transcendent claims that outrank the pretensions of modern secular man” (91). Hence, the “Judeo-Christian tradition” works from within the system to essentially help serve as a transcendent check to government power.

Joel’s Reaction
The biggest problem with Wilson’s comments in this chapter comes down to his hypocrisy. He objects to how Progressives hurl labels against conservative Christians and paints them all with the same brush of “white supremacy,” “theo-fascist,” etc. That is absolutely true. That happens all the time. Case in point, from what I have always been told, all Christian nationalists are hell-bent on violence and worship Donald Trump like a God. Lo and behold, here is Wilson who thinks “Christian nationalism” is a good thing, but who (whether I agree with him or not) is defining it in different terms, not advocating for violence, and clearly is voicing his distaste for Donald Trump. Therefore, Wilson’s warning about degenerating into using toxic labels is true…but then he does the same thing all over the place. If you were just going on how he characterized liberals, you’d think they all were pot-smoking, transexual drag queens who love abortion and want to use the federal government to throw conservative Christians in jail…or worse! Now, are there some utter lunatics on the Political Left? Sure. Are all liberals like that? Of course not. I doubt if even Wilson really believes that.

I did appreciate Wilson’s comments about how the idea of “American exceptionalism” is idolatrous. There’s nothing wrong with loving America and celebrating the freedoms we have here. But to elevate it as if it were “God’s special nation” or whatever is bizarre and idolatrous. Again, though, I have to say, it seems that Wilson has an almost utopian vision of America’s past. Yes, many of the states were “officially” a certain Christian denomination—okay. There were still plenty of problems and abuses of power back then too. And since it is obvious that corruption and abuse of political power happens across the board, whether that government is “secular” or nominally Christian, I fail to see how the “answer” to corruption is to have some kind of formalized, nominal Christian declaration. Wilson does say in the chapter that a “Christian nation” can’t work unless Christian pastors and teachers are actively preaching/teaching the Gospel and exhorting people to live Christ-like lives—that’s true. But that’s what Christians should be doing anyway. And yes, that kind of witness will hopefully have an impact on culture. And if it did, then why would there be a need for some kind of formal Christian declaration at the government level?

Chapter 7: “The Goodness of Mere Christendom”
I found Chapter 7 to be a bit rambling. So, I’ll do my best to drastically summarize Wilson’s main point. Here it is: (1) Christendom is an essential part of Reformed theology; (2) the gospel will inevitably have political results, but it should not be politically established (i.e. forced on people); (3) the magistrate (public official) should be a servant of the gospel; and (4) the Christian faith is “inescapably political” (in that it will impact culture and society), but “it must not allow itself to be co-opted by secular and unbelieving partisanship.”

At the end of the chapter, Wilson insists that being a Christian trumps being an American—the two are not automatically synonymous. To press his point, he says that a “conservative Republican believer” has more in common with a Palestinian Christian than a secular representative of the state of Israel. At the same time, though, he insists that if you call yourself a Christian, then you should have more in common with “a devout Christian woman with hoop earrings who just got back from the RNC” than a Palestinian non-Christian. His point is this: “If shared love for Jesus can transcend the barriers thrown up by the conflict in the Middle East, then why can’t it transcend the barriers created by your neighbor’s love for The 700 Club, and your inability to abide that man?” (102).

Joel’s Reaction
Again, on a certain level, I see Wilson’s point. Yes, the gospel will ultimately have political results, how could it not? And yes, it shouldn’t be politically established and forced on people. But I have to ask, “Then how is calling for a formal declaration of Christ at the government level not “forcing” Christianity on people? If Wilson says that public officials should be servants of the gospel, then I would assume he thinks only Christians should be in positions of government—but then how is that not “forcing” Christianity on anyone who wants to work in government?

We can look back to the effects that Constantine’s conversion had on the Roman Empire. Now, I am not one who broadbrushes Constantine’s reign as when Christianity became hopeless contaminated, etc. I think Constantine genuinely became a Christian, and yet still was a flawed human being. I also am certain that his conversion did have a “Christianizing” effect on the empire, and the result was a lot of positive, good things. At the same time, though, it is also equally obvious that it was easy for those who wanted political power to mouth allegiance to Christ for their political advantage—and Constantine never even made Christianity the “official religion” of the empire! All that said, how Wilson can call for a formal recognition of the Lordship of Christ in government, but then not see how that would constitute “forcing” Christianity on people is baffling to me.

As for Wilson saying that Christianity should not let itself be co-opted by “secular and unbelieving [political] partisanship,” amen to that, but that the same time, are you kidding me? Sadly, that boat has sailed. Besides, “Christianity” doesn’t let itself be co-opted; individual Christians allow their faith to be co-opted and hijacked by partisan politics, and that is on those individual Christians. I’m not going to “blame Christianity” for what some ultra-leftist progressive social media “pastor” pushes on his Twitterfeed, or for how some ultra-Fundie televangelist becomes a mouthpiece for the Republican party.

That’s not to say Christians can’t have and share their political views. All I know is that I know some extremely conservative Christians and extremely liberal Christians with whom I don’t agree with on many political issues, but we all know enough not to confuse our political views with Christianity. At the same time, I know of self-professed Christians who reflect much more the image of an elephant or ass than they do Christ—and that is not good. And that ties into the last thing Wilson talks about in the chapter—that thing about Palestinian Christians and The 700 Club. He’s right on that point. You might be a liberal or conservative Christian, but if you spend all your time bashing Christians on the other side of the political aisle, that’s a problem.

All that said, at this point in Wilson’s advocating for “Christian nationalism,” although I find it oversimplistic and quasi-utopian, I’m not coming across any militancy or any of the caricatures many of my liberal friends have told me about Wilson. I might disagree with what he feels is the answer to the problems in our society and government, but he doesn’t strike me as a raving lunatic who thinks Trump is the messiah, the Constitution is inspired, and that God and Uncle Sam are one and the same. I’m sure there are Christian Nationalists who do think that way–those people are nuts. Maybe Wilson has said other things in other works that is nuts. Thus far in Mere Christendom, though, he’s making a fairly rational, albeit flawed, case for his views about government and Christianity’s impact on society.