There is an amusing bit in a Religion News Service story about Christian Nationalist preacher Douglas Wilson of Moscow, Idaho:
Wilson imagined a global order of Christian nations that would exclude any self-described Christian nation that allowed for same-sex marriage or abortion access, saying a “liberal Methodist” nation would be “out” and people who embraced “some total loopy-heresy” would be barred from holding public office.
“This is a Christian republic, and … you’re not singing off the same sheet of music that we are,” he told RNS at the time. “So, no, you can’t be the mayor.”
Wilson often touts a Christian confessional state, suggesting that the Apostles Creed could be in the U.S. Constitution. He pastors a congregation in the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, a small but intellectually vibrant Calvinist denomination with a Presbyterian polity. Wilson is arguably the father of contemporary confessional state Christian Nationalism. The Case for Christian Nationalism by Stephen Wolfe was published by Canon Press, which Wilson founded.
It’s fun that Wilson, to caricaturize a bad country not qualifying for a global order of Christian nations, described it as “liberal Methodist.” His remarks preceded the official sexual liberalization of United Methodism last month. Almost any kind of Methodist, liberal or otherwise, is likely unsavory to Wilson, an arch Calvinist.
Wilson’s brand of Christian Nationalism envisions a conservative ecumenical confessional state, as opposed to Wolfe’s book, which more specifically articulates the case for a Calvinist confessional state. Wilson is relatively more pragmatic.
Of course, what Wilson advocates, a Christian confessional state, is the perspective of a small minority of U.S. Christians, the vast majority of whom share in the traditional American concept of equal rights and liberty for all people regardless of religious affiliation. But his perspective is entertained by a growing number of intelligent young Reformed men who are part of the current postliberal moment. Where they lack numbers, they have intellectual energy. So, it is not to be dismissed lightly.
Wilson’s Calvinist politics contrast starkly with Methodism, liberal or not. Methodism, including in its conservative shades, is socially and politically egalitarian. It’s not quite Quaker, but it does traditionally appeal to the outsider and the downtrodden, minimizing hierarchy, and stressing human equality. Baptists are most associated with historic developments in religious liberty. Believing in baptism only for believers, Baptists rejected a society in Christendom where all citizens are deemed Christians based on their baptism. Baptists stressed the individual believer’s conscience, to choose faith, and to be baptized.
Methodists don’t have this history, having emerged from the established Church of England. But the Methodists in early America easily aligned with Baptists in affirming church disestablishment and religious liberty for all, rejecting religious tests in civil life. According to Theodore Weber in his Politics in the Order of Salvation, Methodists inherited an emphasis on each person, Christian or not, having God’s political image. Each person, Christian or not, by virtue of this universal political image is God’s viceregent on earth, called to participate in governance.
No Methodists, conservative or liberal, would join with Wilson in saying to anyone, by virtue of their religion, “So, no, you can’t be the mayor.” This Methodist perspective, in rejecting religious tests, with stress on the universality of God’s image, has become the ecumenical position for most of universal Christianity. The Catholic Church of course came to this stance in 1965 with Dignitatis Humanae, the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on Religious Liberty.
Wilson upholds a much older Presbyterian view of “rule of the saints,” dating to the Scottish covenanters, and affirmed in the 1646 Westminster Confession. Post-Revolution American Presbyterians in 1788 removed this expectation of rule of the saints, instead affirming religious liberty. But post liberals reject this “modern” innovation as an Enlightenment corruption. They want the original strong coffee.
A theoretical global order of Christian nations conceived by Wilson would align with the old Presbyterian view, although not completely, since ecumenical Apostles Creed Christianity would be the expectation. So perhaps in this unlikely vision, majority Christian nations in Africa might join with some Latin American nations with conservative majorities of Catholics and Pentecostals. Almost no European or North American nation would qualify. Perhaps Russia would, and maybe, Hungary.
Extraordinary, transformative events would have to transpire before America would qualify for Wilson’s “global order of Christian nations.” America, even without contemporary social liberalism, would still be a “Methodist nation.” The “rule of the saints” only really occurred in old Puritan New England, with looser Anglican religious establishments in the south. Modern democratic America was shaped by the Second Great Awakening, which overthrew the rickety old religious establishments and established the demographic dominance of Methodists, Baptists, Restorationists and others. These new groups stressed conversion, and new life, reached through voluntary individual decisions, not mediated by ruling saints. This individualism and voluntarism shaped America’s culture and politics.
The current postliberal mood, Christian or otherwise, disfavors Methodist America crafted by the Second Great Awakening, with dynamic, unruly individualism. It is nostalgic for an idealized, pre-Methodist America, and pre-liberal Europe, with controlled religious establishments and stricter hierarchy. Everybody knows their place, shepherded by theologically trained bearded patriarchs.
Wilson’s premodern Presbyterian perspective is a revolutionary one, based on the model of John Knox facing down Mary Queen of Scots, to establish a state religion that topples idols. The Methodist model is gradualist and reformist, striving to perfect society incrementally. The former looks for leadership from the elect. The latter sees each person as an equal societal shareholder.
To what extent, if any, Christianity points to what Wilson calls a “Christian republic” is a topic that will remain part of the postliberal conversation for the foreseeable future.
Comment by David on June 4, 2024 at 9:34 pm
“You may therefore shut your eyes, at least not force people’s consciences, but allow everyone to have his own belief, as long as he behaves quietly and legally, gives no offense to his neighbors and does not oppose the government.”—Directive of the Dutch West India Company to Pieter Stuyvesant, c. 1662.
Comment by Brian Evers on June 5, 2024 at 9:33 am
We should stop referring to bible denying, LGBTQ-affirming, Trinity-denying “liberal” Methodists as Methodists or Christians at all. They are people who have separated themselves willfully from God’s instructions and feign some sort of religion that is not the Christian faith. By labeling them Methodist/Christians, you excuse their error.
Comment by John on June 5, 2024 at 7:40 pm
I think that Methodist commitment to republicanism (both among liberals and conservatives) is a direct result of their belief in prevenient grace, or grace prior to conversion. This allows them to see the Imago Deo traits and virtues in the non-believer than hyper-Calvinists like Wilson would be more inclined to see as a trick of the devil. Wilson sees the non-believer as his enemy and is struggle as one of lily white saints against totally depraved shadows in the night. It is a compelling image, I will give him that, but one owing more to romantic fiction than the Gospel. For John Wesley and the early Methodists the greatest struggle was always being fought within each individual between grace and sin.
Comment by Gary Bebop on June 6, 2024 at 12:21 pm
When writing up these moods or trends in American governance, one should step back a little from the narrative of Second Awakening Methodist hegemony and think about the sudden overthrow of biblical morality in our moment as a repugnant paradigm shift, one which the churches were unprepared to resist. That is a sobering fact. Methodism has spent its moral currency and joined the crowds in torchlight.
Comment by Charles S. Oaxpatu on June 6, 2024 at 9:29 pm
When the much-talked-about Second American Civil War actually happens, it will be interesting to see which sides the various American “bodies of Christ” will join in their lust, hatred, and desire to kill their fellow man because of what he or she believes—-because that absolutely IS where everything seems to be heading right now. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as envisioned by Jefferson and Madison, was implemented to prevent violent fighting between the adherents to various sets of religious beliefs. It seems to me that numerous Christian entities who simply disagreed with each other in earlier American times have now concluded that they can no longer coexist. Therefore, one side needs to do all it can to wipe out the other side so their version of the gospel will have the ONLY Christian Truth in America. Perhaps you recall the statement of a famous priest: “If I am in a room with 49 other people, and all 49 of the other people in that room were to be killed, I alone would have the truth in that room.”
I am horrified to see that it has come down to this in the minds of so many Americans, especially those wedded to right wing politics. However, the conflict is all too obvious throughout American print and broadcast media today. Which of you is going to stop this new Civil War madness long before it becomes a blood-spilling reality on our city streets and highways—–and in our neighborhoods. It seems to me that disbanding IRD and the Juicy Ecumenism blog would be one of many really good places to start because they are all about internecine religious conflict—and they are all oriented toward victory for your side in all things.
Comment by Dan W on June 7, 2024 at 6:15 am
“When the much-fantasized Second American Civil War actually happens”
(Fixed it for you.)
None of the Southeastern States would break off, because they are pretty thoroughly integrated. Some of the Western states might, but progressives are flocking to them to escape the mess they made in California, Oregon and Washington. Like it or not, we are interdependent.
Comment by John on June 7, 2024 at 10:35 am
Gary Bebop,
You think Methodists preaching during the Second Great Awakening saw the world where slavery was widely practiced and Native American genocide celebrated as less fallen than our own? Some early Methodist circuit riders were openly attacked by mobs when their preaching went against the popular attitudes of the time? Yet their commitment to a democratic republican government was ironclad. They defended religious liberty passionately. I hear all these Christian nationalists trying to rile up other Christian conservatives by opening their rhetoric with attacks on a laundry list of modern woes in order to make the case that we live in such dire times that extraordinary measures are necessary. Too many sheep are being led astray by these authoritarian wolves. We cannot simply be fair-weather proponents of American freedom. We have to take the good with the bad. As Franklin said, “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Comment by Douglas E Ehrhardt on June 7, 2024 at 12:07 pm
The sexual mutilation of children is dire. Millions of unvetted illegal immigrants is dire. Have the experts on Christian Nationalism actually listened to the boogie men?
Comment by John on June 7, 2024 at 5:10 pm
Douglas E. Ehrhardt,
Explain to me why we would need to create a theocracy in order to address immigration? You’re like the doctor who proposes a lobotomy to treat everything. By the way, the use of gential surgery on minors, which is what I assume you mean by “sexual mutiliation” is extremely rare, already illegal in many states, requires parental consent even where it is legal, and is usually done to treat naturally-occurring abonomalities in the gential system rather than to treat gender dysphoria. Puberty blockers and hormone therapy are more common treatments for minors.
Comment by Palamas on June 11, 2024 at 4:55 pm
Shorter Charles S. Oaxpatu: All of this conflict is unnecessary. If only conservatives (political and theological) would just become liberals, or crawl under a bridge and never come out, everything would be better.
As for Wilson, he’s widely known as an eccentric, and in some ways a genuine crank. I’m a Calvinist and Presbyterian, and know that most conservative Reformed American Christians have no desire whatsoever to return to 17th century Scotland. Nor should we.
Comment by Norm on June 11, 2024 at 6:20 pm
So iron-fisted theocracies aren’t just for Iran anymore. Interesting. Not sure that’s what the founding fathers – it Jesus Christ – had in mind.
Comment by Dale Yancy on June 12, 2024 at 10:16 am
Here’s where Christian Nationalism misses the boat (big time). It’s a flawed theology that basically espouses “REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY” with the Church replacing Israel. There is no place in Scripture where God says He has replaced His chosen people and chosen land with the Church. Israel is the only nation on earth that inhabits the same land, bears the same name, speaks the same language, and worships the same god that it did 3,000 years ago. The Christians of the 1st century (mostly Jews) did not subscribe to supersessionism (replacement theology). That was an invention of the church in later part of 2nd century. Doug Wilson’s theology has no place for the Jews unlike the Word of God (Romans 11, where Paul said in Romans 11:13-36 that the Gentiles have been grafted into the vine, and the root is Abraham, Isaac & Jacob which supports the Gentile believers.) While I sympatize with Wilson’s critique of Methodism and how adrift it is in the sea of moral relativism. Doug Wilson’s theology is not much better since it misses the mark and it is now the Good News of the Kingdom, which proclaims Jesus as Messiah, Lord and King, coming back to step foot on the Mt. of Olives and reign and rule in Jerusalem for a 1000 yrs. (not Moscow, Idaho, or St. Louis, or Amsterdam, London, L.A., etc.)
Comment by Winston Smith on June 13, 2024 at 10:35 pm
Dear Norm:
Will you be surprised by the Millenium (assuming you’re “here” and not “there”). Have a look at Psalm 2. Christ will rule with “a rod of iron.” Or Isaiah 11.14, “But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth; and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth; and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.”
When Christ returns, He will not put up with any such foolishness as that we’ve seen from the UMC or the PCUSA (and their heretical brethren), since one of the important characteristics of the millennial rule of Christ is that His government will be absolute in its authority and power. This is demonstrated in His destruction of all who oppose Him. His judgment will be absolutely righteous and absolutely inarguable.
No support for Wilson here, but your egalitarian, meek & mild picture of Jesus doesn’t square with the clear Biblical revelation of the coming Kingdom. Good luck arguing your views with Christ when HE is the government.