There is much in this book worth thinking about and reflecting upon, even if one may well end up having almost as many questions as answers after going through its 480 pages. I still have a number of very real questions and do not agree with everything being said. A number of further articles will be needed to fully and properly present what he is saying, and how I might react to it. This is a significant and valuable volume looking at some key issues and questions that have been debated for many centuries now.

This book is getting a lot of attention – and opposition. But it is worth being aware of:
In America at least plenty of folks are talking about ‘Christian nationalism’ – usually used as a term of abuse and derision. The secular left (and some Christians) see it as some sinister plot along the lines of what is found in The Handmaid’s Tale.
So when a Christian author comes along seeking to make the case for Christian nationalism, all hell tends to break loose. Already a number of books have appeared on this, both pro and con. The most substantial and significant volume seeking to make the case for it is by Stephen Wolfe.

This is the second of several pieces that looks at his new book which is getting a lot of attention, as well as causing no small amount of controversy. Given that it is a tightly argued and carefully crafted work of nearly 500 pages, dealing with rather complex and difficult topics, a short review can hardly do it justice.

Thus I am doing a series of articles on this volume. Yesterday I looked at one particular aspect of the book.
Here I just want to offer some big-picture preliminary thoughts, before I can even attempt to try to both describe and assess the case he is seeking to make. So here are some prefatory remarks that are worth making. Stay tuned for future articles which will be a bit more in line with a proper book review.
Before I go any further, let me make one minor criticism. This large book has no index. So before I could adequately discuss it or properly review it, I had to create my own index. That I did over a 24-hour period, listing at least the major issues and points of note. In what follows I will include page numbers along the way.
And before listing my preliminary concerns, let me try – as foolish as it might be – to give the skimpiest of outlines of his case. It would run something like this:

There was, even before the fall, the need for some sort of social organisation and order.
Love of family, kinship, and even liking one’s nation are not necessarily bad things (although they can become bad).
There is no neutral public square. If it is not one informed by Christianity, it will be informed by some other competing worldview.
There is a place for like-minded Christians having communities and nations reflecting their beliefs and values – including the use of civil rulers to help affirm and maintain this to some extent.

Wolfe says his intent is this: “[M]y goal is to reinvigorate Christendom in the West – that is my chief aim” (119). But that term, like ‘Christian nationalism,’ needs to be carefully defined – which Wolfe seeks to do. However, as mentioned, I will seek to tease all this out much further in some sort of proper book review – or two! So stay tuned. But here are a few prefatory remarks.
First, this is an important book. That is because it deals with some very important topics, especially including the two things we are NOT supposed to discuss in polite society: politics and religion. These are topics that have been discussed for millennia by philosophers, theologians, historians, political scientists, and ethicists. They are bound to be big topics, and thus not easily digested or understood in short sound bites or quotes.
But to say this book is important is not to say that I necessarily agree with all of it. Das Kapital is important, as is The Origin of the Species (not that I am lumping Wolfe’s book in with these two). One can differ quite a bit with significant titles. But they are worth being aware of and interacting with.

Also, like most authors writing about such topics, there will be a starting point, a worldview, or a set of presuppositions that guide the writer. If one has fundamental differences with those starting points, then chances are the argument as a whole may not be embraced.

Wolfe certainly has his own points of reference. First of all, he is an American, and much of this book of course reflects Christianity in America, along with the rest of the West. In many respects America did have a unique founding – many would argue a Christian founding – so those from other nations may not be fully in sync with what is being presented here.
Read More
Related Posts:

Yahaya Sharif-Aminu is a singer-songwriter in his early 20s. He’s a Sufi Muslim, making him a religious minority in northern Nigeria’s mostly Sunni population. He shared some of his songs in a WhatsApp group in 2020. Some of the members in the WhatsApp group, however, accused Yahaya of committing “blasphemy” against the “prophet” Muhammad. Soon a mob surrounded his family’s home and burned it down. Police officers subsequently arrested Yahaya and he was convicted under Sharia court—without legal counsel—to death by hanging. 

The deadliest country in the world for Christians isn’t Afghanistan or North Korea, it’s Nigeria.
Last year, 5,621 Christians were killed worldwide because of their faith—90% of them were northern Nigerians.
Mission organizations are reporting that Christian persecution is at its highest in 30 years. And that’s primarily because of what’s been happening in northern Nigeria over the last 24 years.
Approximately half of Nigeria’s population are professing Christians, and most of them live in the south. However the other half are Muslims, and most of them live in the north.
Northern Nigeria is where Boko Haram, an Islamic terrorist group, have kidnapped thousands of young girls and killed tens of thousands of people over the last decade. But Boko Haram is enabled by northern Nigeria’s Sharia laws. There’s a direct relationship between terrorism and Sharia law in Nigeria.
Boko Haram was founded in northern Nigeria in 2002, shortly after 12 northern states reintroduced Sharia law between 1999 and 2001—despite Nigerians’ constitutional right to religious freedom. Since then, at least 50,000 Christians in northern Nigeria have been murdered.
And it’s actually getting worse. Last year was the deadliest year for Christians in Nigeria. Sharia blasphemy laws, terrorist attacks, and mob violence killed at least 5,000 Christians last year.
One of these Christians was Deborah Samuel. She was a student at a university in Sokoto State, northern Nigeria. She was killed at her school because she praised Jesus for her academic success.
On May 12, 2022, a classmate asked Deborah in a WhatsApp group for their class how she passed a recent exam. She answered, “Jesus.” According to some of her classmates, that answer is a crime worthy of death.
Some of her classmates replied with Islamic statements and demanded that she should retract her words about Jesus. But she refused. Instead, she defended her Christian beliefs.
Immediately the Muslim students said she was guilty of blasphemy under Sokoto State’s Sharia law, which is punishable by death. So they called on others in the community to execute mob justice.
School security tried to protect Deborah, but they were overpowered by the mob. Police officers were called, but they were supposedly intimidated by the large crowd. The mob threatened to kill anyone who tried to help her, so the rest of the Christian students fled the scene and returned home for their own safety.
Deborah, however, didn’t get the opportunity to return home to her parents.
Read More
Related Posts:

The Negative World might necessitate a change in one’s approach, but it ought not to change one’s conviction. In navigating the shifting tides of cultural dynamics, Deevers’s steadfast commitment to unwavering principles serves as a beacon of resilience.

You’re probably familiar with the controversial placement of a symbolic display by the Satanic Temple of Iowa in the Iowa State Capital in November 2023. The display showcases a mannequin resembling the pagan deity Baphomet, adorned with a ram’s head covered in reflective surfaces. Jon Harris recently wrote about the affair in these pages.
Apparently, Iowa allows any faith group to place images or icons in the state house for a term of two weeks. That said, the Satanist Temple self-professedly intended provocation with its statue. The move ignited widespread controversy culminating in the destruction of the display by one Michael Cassidy. What was noteworthy, and garnered much attention, about the chain of events was not the statue or its demise, but the response from pastor and Iowa Representative Jon Dunwell. His commentary was, in a sense, more controversial than the underlying facts.
Dunwell contended that if Satanists are prevented from installing statues of demons in the halls of Congress, then Christians will also have the same limitations in expressing their devotion to God in the public square. The distinctive aspect of Dunwell’s message lies in the overwhelmingly negative reaction it garnered from Conservative Christians. His critics contended that he had compromised the cherished values that many of his constituents hold dear and had betrayed the moral fabric of the community. Equally noteworthy was Dunwell’s apparently genuine surprise at the backlash he received from conservative Christians. To him, it seemed he was merely upholding the pluralistic status quo of “religious liberty.” As the old saying goes, “I may disagree with your Satanic displays, but I’ll fight for your right to display them.”
Perhaps unbeknownst to him, Dunwell’s surprise is rooted in what Aaron Renn terms the Negative World, a new realm we have all entered whether we like it or not.
Providentially, as the events with the Satanic display transpired, Dusty Deevers won a state senate election in Oklahoma, and by a significant margin. Much like Dunwell, now Senator Deevers wears multiple hats serving as both a pastor and a businessman, father and husband. It may not seem unusual or remarkable that a conservative like Deevers won an election in a red state, but, the odds were against him.
Deevers had no prior experience in politics unlike his main primary opponent, J.J. Francais. Francais is the mayor of Elgin, Deevers’s own town of residence. He also enjoyed financial backing and endorsements from the Governor of Oklahoma and the state superintendent. Despite this, Deevers beat Francais 2-to-1 in the very town Francais is the mayor. Jean Hausheer, Deevers’s other primary opponent, had strong financial backing and was even financially endorsed by Bart Barter, the President of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), Deevers’s own denomination in which he is ordained.
It would be quotes from Bart Barber that Deevers’s general election opponent, Larry Bush, would use against him in mailers across his district. To make things even harder for the Deevers campaign, two attack advertisements against him were played during the Texas vs Oklahoma college football game, as well as the Cowboys game the following day. Millions of people saw these ads. Your average politico would project a poor performance from Deevers.
Despite facing considerable challenges and opposition, Deevers emerged victorious, and Oklahomans emerged better for it. This success can be attributed not to mere popularity, winsomeness, or concessions, but rather to his unwavering commitment to his convictions, a genuine affection for his community, and a deliberate rejection of the “third-way” approach. Deevers’s campaign went beyond mere criticism of the abortion industry. He also scrutinized the Pro-Life sector, accusing it of compromising its principles. He was a vocal critic of the In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) industry and same-sex marriage. Deevers even advocated for the abolition of pornography.
One of his more controversial positions was his call to repeal no-fault divorce. He endorsed the idea of shaming those responsible for unjustified family breakdowns. In other words, Deevers ran a campaign that emphasized and prioritized the traditional family top to bottom. “Good families build good governments,” said Deevers. He emphasized the importance of protecting traditional family structures as the foundation for society’s well-being. “We must protect traditional marriage…I will fight to make sure Oklahoma laws never interfere with the spiritual and economic thriving of families.”
Deevers’s emphasis on uncompromising family values was just one facet of his campaign. He firmly supports the Second Amendment, advocates for lower taxes, and champions an overall business-friendly economy. However, above all, he made it unequivocally clear that his role as State Senator would be rooted in the acknowledgment that Christ is King. In Deevers’s words,
“I am a Christian first and foremost and a conservative through and through. Jesus is my King, and the Word of God is my guide. I make no bones about it. My faith in and love of Christ, which I preach every other Sunday at my church, animates my life and would be the foundation of everything I do as Oklahoma State Senator.” He then gets specific about what this means in practice: “It is an outrage that the government attempted to force closure of churches and businesses…that drag queens are permitted to dance for children at pride parades and story hours…that our public schools have exposed children to LGBTQ+ propaganda…that abortion pills still flow through legally in our state…that pornography and no-fault divorce are prevalent in our society…and that Critical Race Theory and Queer Theory dominate our public institutions. I promise to support legislation to put a stop to all of this.”
Deevers’s commitment to faith-based values and straightforward communication style struck a chord with conservative and Christian voters. Deevers’s opponents saw these policy issues as weaknesses, ones that they attempted to exploit by circulating thousands of flyers advertising his views, as if he was embarrassed by them and that they were per se ridiculous. But like Dunwell, Deevers’s opponents too have appeared to enter the Negative World without realizing it.
To reiterate the argument presented by Renn, the trajectory of secularization in the American narrative unfolds in three distinct stages: The Positive World (Pre-1994) characterized by a predominantly favorable societal view of Christianity; The Neutral World (1994-2014) where society adopts a neutral stance towards Christianity; and The Negative World (2014-present) where a pervasive negative perception of Christianity, particularly at the institutional level, has taken hold. The rejection of Christian morality is viewed as a potential hazard to both the public welfare and the emerging secular framework. As Renn points out, embracing Christian moral perspectives results in adverse repercussions. This transition is marked by a notable shift in public sentiment, with an increasing number of individuals and institutions expressing skepticism or disapproval of Christian moral values.  In light of this transformation, conventional methods of persuasion used by Conservative politicians and church leaders in the past are becoming obsolete in the Negative World, and this shift is evident in the changing political landscape.
Societal institutions are increasingly hostile to Christianity, that’s a given. But something more is going on. Conservative Christians are finding themselves less satisfied with the middle-of-the-road approach that prioritizes winsomeness and mainstream respectability in evangelical leaders and conservative politicians. A growing discontent is evident as individuals within these groups express frustration with compromises made in an attempt to appeal to a broad audience. This approach usually involves softening the Gospel’s exclusivity, and Biblical morality generally, through an emphasis on post-war, proceduralist dogma ostensibly designed for civility and stability. This Dunwell embodies.
Read More
Related Posts: