- Joined
- Jan 1, 2019
- Messages
- 1,155
- Reaction score
- 541
- Points
- 113
Has anyone seen the new book "The Case For Christian Nationalism" by Stephen Wolfe? Here are two reviews of the book, by Kevin DeYoung (Presbyterian) and Neil Shenvi (appears to be Baptist):
www.thegospelcoalition.org
shenviapologetics.com
These reviews are mostly negative. DeYoung says, "The message—that ethnicities shouldn’t mix, that heretics can be killed, that violent revolution is already justified, and that what our nation needs is a charismatic Caesar-like leader to raise our consciousness and galvanize the will of the people—may bear resemblance to certain blood-and-soil nationalisms of the 19th and 20th centuries, but it’s not a nationalism that honors and represents the name of Christ."
Shenvi is critical of Wolfe's teaching on ethnicity: "We should still challenge his thinking about 'ethnicity,' which is deeply flawed, especially in relation to the church. For example, he writes: 'People of different ethnic groups can exercise respect for difference, conduct some routine business with each other, join in inter-ethnic alliances for mutual good, and exercise common humanity (e.g., the good Samaritan), but they cannot have a life together that goes beyond mutual alliance' (p. 148).
"Imagine that Christians of different 'ethnicities' actually came to believe that they could not share a 'life together that goes beyond mutual alliance.' What would this idea do to the unity of the church? Would Bible studies have to segregate along lines of 'ethnicity?'. . .
"We should flatly reject the idea that Christians who belong to different ethnic groups 'cannot have a life together that goes beyond mutual alliance.' One of the reasons I so strongly oppose critical theory is that it will divide (and is dividing) the church along lines of race, class, and gender, fracturing the people of God into separate camps. Brothers, such things should not be. Christians who rail against the divisive ideas of critical theory must not soft-pedal divisive ideas smuggled in under the guise of 'Christian nationalism.'"
I personally am not impressed with this particular brand of "Christian Nationalism." Wolfe appears to have a Reformed background, and he wants to go back to the original Westminster Confession of 1648 which declared that "magistrates" or government officials have a duty to impose and enforce their version of Christianity. He appears to favor some form of classification and branding of people by ethnic background. He hints at executing heretics and making infant baptism mandatory. If this is what Christian Nationalism is all about, then, in my opinion, we need to be cautious about embracing it, but hey, that's just me.
The Rise of Right-Wing Wokeism
‘I understand and sympathize with the desire for something like Christian Nationalism, but if this book represents the best of that ism, then Christian Nationalism is not the answer the church or our nation needs.’
www.thegospelcoalition.org
Of Gods and Men: A Long Review of Wolfe’s Case for Christian Nationalism, Part I – Book Summary
This is Part I of a four-part review (see also Part II, Part III, Part IV) of Stephen Wolfe’s Case for Christian Nationalism. Introduction Since the events of Jan. 6th, 2021, when protestors …
shenviapologetics.com
These reviews are mostly negative. DeYoung says, "The message—that ethnicities shouldn’t mix, that heretics can be killed, that violent revolution is already justified, and that what our nation needs is a charismatic Caesar-like leader to raise our consciousness and galvanize the will of the people—may bear resemblance to certain blood-and-soil nationalisms of the 19th and 20th centuries, but it’s not a nationalism that honors and represents the name of Christ."
Shenvi is critical of Wolfe's teaching on ethnicity: "We should still challenge his thinking about 'ethnicity,' which is deeply flawed, especially in relation to the church. For example, he writes: 'People of different ethnic groups can exercise respect for difference, conduct some routine business with each other, join in inter-ethnic alliances for mutual good, and exercise common humanity (e.g., the good Samaritan), but they cannot have a life together that goes beyond mutual alliance' (p. 148).
"Imagine that Christians of different 'ethnicities' actually came to believe that they could not share a 'life together that goes beyond mutual alliance.' What would this idea do to the unity of the church? Would Bible studies have to segregate along lines of 'ethnicity?'. . .
"We should flatly reject the idea that Christians who belong to different ethnic groups 'cannot have a life together that goes beyond mutual alliance.' One of the reasons I so strongly oppose critical theory is that it will divide (and is dividing) the church along lines of race, class, and gender, fracturing the people of God into separate camps. Brothers, such things should not be. Christians who rail against the divisive ideas of critical theory must not soft-pedal divisive ideas smuggled in under the guise of 'Christian nationalism.'"
I personally am not impressed with this particular brand of "Christian Nationalism." Wolfe appears to have a Reformed background, and he wants to go back to the original Westminster Confession of 1648 which declared that "magistrates" or government officials have a duty to impose and enforce their version of Christianity. He appears to favor some form of classification and branding of people by ethnic background. He hints at executing heretics and making infant baptism mandatory. If this is what Christian Nationalism is all about, then, in my opinion, we need to be cautious about embracing it, but hey, that's just me.
