The Truth About Christian Nationalism – Stephen Wolfe

In this episode, Mark interviews author Stephen Wolfe, author of The Case for Christian Nationalism.

His book is deep. It’s challenging. Mark recommends it to anyone interested in Christian political theory. Unfortunately, some Christians who say they don’t support what is outlined in the book have never read it. Instead, they often fall for stereotypes about Christian nationalism that the secular media promotes and buy in to the straw man arguments about Christian nationalism from its many detractors.

That said, Mark believes every Christian who is concerned about the direction of our nation and culture should read it.

Here a few of the questions Mark asks Stephen:

What is Christian Nationalism?

Is the church called to change the culture?

Is the pursuit of cultural Christianity I replacement for preaching the gospel?

What are the dangers of this view?

Be a good Berean – “Examine the scriptures to see what is true.” Acts 17:11

Also, read/listen to those who oppose the position written about in this book and by other authors. Only then can you reach a well-informed position. Get the book here:

✔️ Instagram –

✔️ iTunes –

✔️ Spotify –

✔️ Everywhere else –

Be sure to follow The Mark Harrington Show on Mark’s Facebook, X, and YouTube accounts. Mark’s show is available on all the popular podcast platforms as well as on Mark’s flagship website:


*This is an AI generated transcript, and may contain inaccurate transcriptions*

Mark Harrington (00:11):

Well, hello everyone. Mark Harrington here, your radio activist, and thanks for tuning into the program. And you can pick us up on all the popular podcasting platforms and all the social media websites. Were on Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, and I’m the founder and president of Created Equal, and we take young people to college campuses across America to debate abortion. As you all know, we’re fighting this fight here in Ohio where the pro-abortion advocates are trying to put on a ballot in November, a constitutional amendment that would expand abortion up to the very moment of birth. We’re going to be talking about that later in the program, but first we’re going to be interviewing author Steven, who is the author of the book, the Case for Christian Nationalism. And you might wonder, well, mark, why would you be talking about Christian nationalism on your program when we namely normally talk about the abortion issue?


Well, here’s why, because I think theology matters. That’s why, and I was given this book, or at least encouraged to read it by my son Dylan, and I picked it up and read it, and then our church did a three-part series on Christian nationalism, and it’s been in the news, I guess as far as it goes within the realm of Christendom. And there’s been a lot of debate about it. And at the heart of that debate is Stephen Wolfe, who’s the author. And so I thought I’d ask him to come on the program and he was gracious enough. Take me up on that. Stephen, thanks for being on the show today. Yeah, thanks for having me on. So you’re kind of wrapped up in this controversy. I don’t think there should be one, honestly, when I ask people, are you a Christian nationalist? They go, well, I’m not a secular nationalist.


I’m not a pagan nationalist. It seems pretty obvious that we’re Christian nationalists, but for some reason this term Christian nationalism comes with some baggage. And I know in the book you talk about whether you should use the term or not, and then you came around to decide that, yeah, I think this is the right way to describe my position, but when I say Christian nationalism to people, they get the wrong impression. So let’s start there. Let’s start there. How would you define it? Now, I know in your book you have a great definition, I’m not going to read it, but there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding and confusion as to what Christian nationalism is. I think a lot of have different definitions, if you will, and I thought to myself, well, let’s let the people that are promoting it and the ones that are writing the books about it to define it. So how would you define Christian nationalism?

Stephen Wolfe (03:13):

Yeah, I’d just say first of all that I don’t really care if people don’t use the term Christian nationalism because it’s just a term that I think accurately describes what I’m arguing for. And if they want to agree with the substance of my argument and yet not use the term, that’s fine. I have friends who are just like that, and it doesn’t bother me at all. So I think the reason we’re asking this question is that we’re very early in kind of a positive case for it. So it’s usually was a term of derision, at least within the last 10 years. I mean, you go back 50 or a hundred years ago, it was actually a positive term used, but in the last 10 years it’s been negative because the word nationalism is spooky and scary and you attach Christian to it. It brings up theocracy and handing tale and all that.


So it was just useful for the left to kind of paint any kind of Christian action as this quote Christian nationalism. So we’re early. I mean, if you asked a question, what does conservatism mean? And then even then, what’s the definition of that? Well, we got David French says he’s conservative, and you also have people like the late Roger Cruden who try to define conservatism. So the point being is we have a lot of terms we use freely that actually don’t have settled definitions. But anyway, to get to your question, I see Christian nationalism as a, it’s a Christian people or a Christian nation who understand themselves as such. So they say to themselves in a way, we are Christian. We’re a Christian people, we have a heritage of faith. And they act in light of that and they insist upon government that reflects Christian values, Christian duties, Christian ends, and that’s what I think Christian nationalism comes down to.


So it’s a self-conception of we as a people are Christian nation, and in light of that, we’re going to have law and we’re going to have our social customs that conform to that. And so the ism of Christian nationalism or the Christian nation ism is not an ideology or something kind of spooky or fascistic or whatever people want to throw at it. It’s really just saying, Hey, we as a people are going to arrange ourselves in light of Christianity through law and custom. So that’s basically my definition. And then I spend 500 pages trying to unpack it,

Mark Harrington (05:45):

And you do a really good job of it in the current context of Donald Trump and his presidency and running for reelection and make America great again and all of this stuff. A lot of times say this phrase, Christian nationalism or nationalism generally gets attributed to Donald Trump. And I like how you in the books kind of make a distinction between what we say is Americanism, if you will, and just Christian nationalism general. You’re not necessarily promoting American Christianity or Christian nationalism. I mean, that’s what I like about the book because a lot of people say, well, this is just another attempt to say, make America great again. Go back to our founding, which I don’t think is a bad idea actually, but if you would kind of distinguish the difference there.

Stephen Wolfe (06:41):

Yeah, that’s very important. So what I’m not saying is that America is this unique country to set apart as if it’s a new Israel that makes it God’s country as opposed to England or France or whatever. So I’m not saying anything like that. The common things thrown out by the critics is just stuff I don’t actually affirm, but for what it’s like 11 or 12 chapters in it, only about two chapters deal with the American context, whereas the rest is just general theory of Christian nationalism. And it’s mainly kind of a discussion of the principles of it. And principles are things that can be applied in different ways given different circumstances. So like a Hungarian Christian nationalism is going to look different than a French Christian nationalism. The England has a tradition of an established church over kind of a national church. So a British Christian nationalism would certainly include some aspect of the national church, whereas an American Christian nationalism would include our tradition of religious liberty and disestablishment, or at least quasi. I mean, there were some early establishments in the early republic, but they weren’t certainly to the size and degree of say, England and other places. But the point being is that Christian nationalism as a set of principles, it will be applied differently in different places, and that’s perfectly fine. I don’t argue for a specific simply just an American Christian nationalism, but that there are these universal principles that are Christian that we can apply in different places in different ways.

Mark Harrington (08:24):

And how would you define nationalism itself? I mean, I think in the book you talk about that we all want the best for the country. Is that how you would see it?

Stephen Wolfe (08:33):

Yeah. So what I try to do is I try to avoid the rabbit hole of what is nationalism. It’s usually a debate. You try to list a bunch of cases and then that we want to say are nationalist, and then we try to find the commonalities and then we can develop this 10 point list of what nationalism is. And I tried to avoid that entirely, and I just said, I asked the question is what is a nation is what I started off essentially first chapter, what is a or second chapter or whatever, it’s, I forget now what is a nation? And then, so nationalism obviously has something to do with what a nation is, so what’s the ism? And I just think of that as the nation, as people saying we’re going to arrange ourselves for our good. So it’s not militarism, it’s not racial superiority, it’s not some sort of ethnic, I don’t know, ethnic superiority or something like that.


It’s just a nation of people seeing themselves as a certain people who ought to act for their good. And I think in that sense, that’s not controversial. So that’s where I try to steer nationalism away from the scary historical elements. So more towards this, I think actually very classical old pre-modern notion of a people seeking their good. So that’s kind of how I see it nationally. It doesn’t satisfy a lot of critics. They really, really want to paint my theory and any theory that would include the word nationalism as fascism 2.0 or something that they make white nationalism, they can’t handle. The fact that I didn’t deny, I didn’t go through this series of denials and talk about historical fascism and all that. So I just avoid that entirely. And of course that annoyed my critics, but I don’t care. It was just mainly the emphasis on, I think the importance of nationalism now is that I think we, especially in western countries, we’ve lost kind of the will to live as a people.


And there’s almost like a self sort of suicidal, like a national suicidal tendency where we’re kind of just in a way destroying ourselves from within and from without. And the nationalism I think is an important corrective to what we’re seeing. And that then people can be more self-assertive as a collective group, as a nation, and resist these more destructive elements of their nation that’s in it presently. And coming in just France, for example, you see France on fire in Paris. This is all self caused. I mean, this is essentially France allowing in people who within group together and they’re different. And because they’re different, it creates animosity and tension. And because they’re not exactly historically French, they cannot integrate well into the economy and society. And so there’s animosity and resentment, and this boils over is all very predictable, is all very predicted several times by people. And yet France just continues it. Same with Italy other places as well. So I think that the nationalism as I present it, is necessary and corrective that’s going to help national survival.

Mark Harrington (12:00):

Well, and who doesn’t want what’s good for their country? I mean, I would hope that everyone does. Of course in America it doesn’t seem like that’s the case as much anymore. There are people trying to tear us down. You say in your definition, as best as you do it here, you say, in order to procure for itself both earthly and heavenly good in Christ, I happen to believe what’s great for a nation is Christianity. I mean, it’s proven itself over the years, but I do want to center in a little bit of our conversation on what you call cultural Christianity. This is one of the areas where folks attack you on and say that Christians aren’t called to change culture, we’re called to preach the gospel. We’re not given the mandate to change culture. How do you respond to that concern or question?

Stephen Wolfe (13:02):



Well, I mean to love your neighbor, to love your neighbor, you’d want a well ordered society and a well ordered society is one that is a Christian society. I mean, you could have somewhat well ordered societies that are not Christian, but the best. It is better in a way for your neighbor to exist in this kind of nominal cultural Christianity than to live in awful secularist Hagan society. And that’s just purely in terms of the earthly benefits. It’s going to be better for you to live in a sort of Mayberry like Andy Griffith show type setting, even if they’re kind of nominal Christian then living in, I don’t know, modern day, some modern day city or town, any town in the United States and elsewhere. So I think it’s just a matter of loving your neighbor. And at the same time, I think cultural Christianity prepares people for faith.


Just like in a family, you may not, if you’re typically Baptist, you’d look for a profession of faith later on in life, and then they’d be baptized. Well, all Baptist households, they set up conditions within their family to kind of lead to that choice, that the lead to accepting Christ so they don’t keep religion away. And then all of a sudden, okay, now they’re 12, let’s give ’em the gospel and see what they do. No, it’s from very young age, they’re attending all these things. I think society can do that as well. And I think it would be actually make the family a lot easier in doing its job if your neighbors were not hostile to you, if your neighbors were perhaps nominal Christians, but at the same time you could trust them not to say that men could get pregnant or any sort of nonsense and absurdity, then it actually makes your job as a parent a lot easier. And so I think it just seems obvious to me. I understand the fear of hypocrisy,


The fear of nominal Christianity, but there’s just, again, there’s the earthly benefits of just a stable, orderly society. And then there’s the heavenly benefits of, hey, everyone around you is not hindering, at the very least, not hindering your discipleship of your children and yourself as well. And then that allows you and others to then disciple them. So it just think seems obvious. And what’s interesting is my critics have actually been somewhat positive on that chapter on cultural Christianity. I mean, some have criticized it, but surprisingly some people have said, yeah, maybe Barry seems okay. But yeah, I think cultural Christianity would be definitely good for us to return to. But it also takes, I mean, it takes a sort of self-assertive, no, we are a Christian town, we are a Christian state, we are a Christian nation, and if we’re not willing to put our foot down and say, no, that’s who we are, and it’s never going to happen. So the point being is it’s not just going to happen by having well wishes in society, we actually have to say, no, that’s who we are, and we’re going to actually keep it that way.

Mark Harrington (16:17):

And it’s kind of an am both right? I mean, you can’t have a cultural Christian nation without the preaching of the gospel. One can’t happen without the other. You got to have people converted to Christ. We talk about that. You have to change hearts and minds and the culture will reflect that, right? And cultural Christianity does create space for, as you talk about the Christian religion. And so I want to talk about that a little bit. You talk about some of the things that civil government can do to promote Christianity, and this is where the rub comes with some folks. They don’t believe that people should be coerced, and I don’t either. I’ve read your book, so I know that you don’t either coerced into believing Christ or converting to Christianity. What do you believe the civil government can do to promote Christianity without crossing over into becoming a state church? Because that’s where people will say, Hey, this is why we left Great Britain and we had the War of Independence for an example.

Stephen Wolfe (17:33):

Yeah, I mean, first of all, no one and no Protestant, even people who we’d call persecutor like Calvin Cerveti and others, they all denied that you could coerce people into belief. So no one is saying, let’s establish a law that mandates you will believe in Christ. And if you don’t with throw in jail or something, no one’s saying that. I’m not saying it’d be wrong for me to say in principle. I think in principle, a government can do a lot. So I think if England wants to have a national church, I think that’s permissible. And same with other countries as well, but in the American context, again, we have the tradition of religious liberty, and I think that’s a very, I mean, we don’t probably have time for this, but it’s a very Protestant to have religious liberty is a very kind of an Anglo Scottish type tradition.


And so it’s been weaved its way, of course it’s fundamental to who we are as Americans, but I do think nevertheless, there is room for the government in the United States to do things that support religion in different ways. I think one would be Sabbath laws on Sunday so that people would be encouraged to then attend church, and they wouldn’t have the distraction of that. It also means that people wouldn’t have the temptation to work on Sunday, meaning, oh, if I could be a waitress or something on Saturday and said they could go to church. So I think that would be, and of course that was there. There’ve been Sunday Sabbath laws for almost history. So that’s not, another thing would be, I think that if we’re going to say that we’re a Christian people in a Christian nation, then public schools, for example, could have a certain role in a limited role in Catechizing, not take over from the church, but kind of what a lot of Christian private Christian schools do. Now, I think you could have, we could get to the point, I’m not saying enforce it right now. I’m saying if we have kind of a stronger sense of where Christian people, I think public schools could have a role in religion with kind a limited role. And I don’t think that violates the first amendment. I think if you look at the way that the First Amendment originally, and I think even to this moment in principle, it constrain the state or constraints of federal government, not so much the states,

Mark Harrington (19:57):

And many of the states had state religion before the founding. So folks, if you want to pick up this book, I very much recommend it. And here’s the thing, maybe you’ve heard about Christian nationalism and it’s just been talked about in certain circles, and you’ve kind of come to the conclusion based on the stereotypes that it means something that it doesn’t. The way to find out is to read the book. If you’re a skeptic, you need to read the book before you make up your mind about it. And that’s the thing, I think unfortunately, a lot of people hear the term Christian nationalism or nationalism, they equate it to Trumpism or Make America great again or white nationalists or all whatever, and you have to read the book to understand it. It doesn’t mean you’re going to agree with everything here, but in order to engage in the conversation with your friends and coworkers and people in your church that this may be discussed, you got to hear from the people that are writing about it.


And that doesn’t mean you should read the other folks as well, but you can pick it up by going to You can pick up Steven’s book. You can also pick it up at the Canon Press is the other place. You can pick it up. Steven, I want to ask you about, well, Mr. Bruce put up the great Commission. I wanted to read this to me. It’s like, duh, this is Jesus’ last words, the commission of the church, and he said, therefore, go make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father Son and the Holy Spirit and teaching them to what, obey everything I’ve commanded you. And surely I’m with you, even to the end of the age, to me, this is as clear as day, right? We’re called to go and make disciples of the nations, teaching them to obey everything that Jesus commanded us. That’s Christian nationalism, isn’t it? Right? Yeah. I

Stephen Wolfe (22:10):

Mean, one thing to notice, first of all, I mean, it recognizes first of all that there are nations. So one of the issues is are they real or not? Well, all nations. Now, people

Mark Harrington (22:20):

Say those are people groups, right?

Stephen Wolfe (22:22):

Either way, yeah, I think they’d be like some kind of people group. I mean, they wouldn’t be modern nation states and all that, but it’s just human difference out in the world. And of course there are just differences and so disciple. So these are real things and that they would obey everything humanity, which I think that once you have kind of a sufficient number of Christians in a nation, then they begin over time saying, we’re Christian people and they ought to obey everything commanded, which includes the full moral law. So this first, I don’t kind of exe this text in the book, but no, yeah, this is my friends who are better theologians and biblical scholars will exe this and unpack it and make a case for Christian nationalism through it.

Mark Harrington (23:15):

Also, I want to ask you about what is the difference between, say Christian nationalism and I happen to think that they are one of the same thing. Is that right? What do you think?

Stephen Wolfe (23:30):

So there are people who use the term Christian nationalism are explicitly theists and I, I’m myself, not a theist, I think by probably secular.

Mark Harrington (23:45):

Can you give us a definition or at least a working definition for that?

Stephen Wolfe (23:50):

Yeah, I mean, the broadly speaking would be that the mosaic law in the Bible should be the primary source, like the original source of all civil law. And then there’s debates among theists about exactly what that means and how that looks and how it’d be applied and all that. There’s people call themselves general equity theists and all that, but the idea is that the mosaic law is the original source, whereas I would think that the Bible can inform civil law, but ultimately the source is going to be natural law or the original created moral law. So I think that’s more of a classical traditional position, or the I’d say is more of a modern kind of 20th century position. But that’s a difference. I think practically there’s not a huge difference. It’s probably more of a theoretical difference between me and them, but

Mark Harrington (24:48):


Stephen Wolfe (24:48):

Don’t think they’re

Mark Harrington (24:49):

The same terms. But also you have people saying, well, you’re just trying to establish a theocracy.

Stephen Wolfe (24:56):

Yeah, well, that’s again, one of those spooky terms that no one really defines clearly. So do I want God’s moral law to govern society? Well, yeah. Do I want there to be this sort of draconian moral legal system? No. Do I think that we should take in account circumstances, characteristics of the people, historical understanding of itself as a people, and then yes, that’s absolutely the case. Like I said before, you apply principles differently. Given the situation, I think we should be very particular and as Americans be Christian Americans and or American Christian nationalists and seek something that’s properly within the American political tradition.

Mark Harrington (25:49):

Another question that comes up in these discussions is how would a say Christian nation treat religious minorities? Those out there say, well, this would just punish them. That’s not what you promote in the book, but how would a religious minority in say America or any other Christian nation, if it were to be that way, how would they be treated?

Stephen Wolfe (26:22):

Yeah, in terms of treatment, I mean, I would just take the 19th century or I 20th century United States, early 20th century where people, Jews were free to have synagogues and they vote, they held office, but everyone still knew that this was a Christian country and specifically a Protestant country. I mean, Roman Catholics knew very well that they were in a Protestant country as well. So religious minorities were given freedom and they could participate in all aspects of society, but there still was a common conception that, wait, yeah, this is a Protestant Christian country, and the Protestants were confident enough to say then it’s going to stay that way. I mean, there’s a complicated history with all that, of course. So I know people have this fear because of course there is a long tradition of persecuting non-Christians and also kind of minority Christian groups and Baptists are anxious about certain aspects of a Presbyterian like me talking about Christian national or Christian nations. But I think that, again, our own tradition is that we can have a confident Protestant country or a confident Christian country while at the same time extending the liberties to people who are not Christian. So I do think are, we’re

Mark Harrington (27:48):

Not talking about compelling worships, throwing people in jail, those types of things, setting up ESG scores against those who don’t believe in Christ, that kind of thing, right? I mean, you’re not promoting that or anything close to it.

Stephen Wolfe (28:02):

Yeah, there wouldn’t be any sort of jail or

Mark Harrington (28:04):

Would people need front a jail, cancel them on call with? Yeah.

Stephen Wolfe (28:08):

I do think though that it’s fair. I think it’s fair to say that if you’re in a Protestant country, people are going to frown on, or if you’re in a Christian country, people are going to frown on someone who’s an outspoken atheist or someone who wants to subvert the Christian foundation, that Christian self-conception. But if people live here peaceably and they don’t try to subvert the order of society, then they’re perfectly free to, and this was true broadly speaking for religious minorities in the country, but I do think it

Mark Harrington (28:44):

Would be like if I went to Egypt right now and I lived in Egypt for a couple of years, I would feel a little bit separated or alienated from Egyptian culture for obvious reasons because I’m not Muslim, right? I mean, it’s kind of a natural outworking. Yeah,

Stephen Wolfe (28:59):

That’s kind of an analogous situation where you have a self-confident Muslim nation, and I know there’s some persecution under the law outside the law that happens in these places, but in the sort of Christian, American Christian country I’m thinking of, it is a self-confident Christian country. It will, I guess, look down upon anything that would subvert that, but still at the same time, not actively seek to persecute people who are in themselves not

Mark Harrington (29:36):

The same. So do you think that would alienate people from coming to Jesus or it would compel them to look into the claims of Christ? I think a lot of there are folks out there that say cultural Christianity is just going to create a bunch of fake Christians, and then those who are nonbelievers are going to be kind of left out in the cold and they won’t be reached with the gospel.

Stephen Wolfe (29:57):

Yeah, I think that’s kind of this modern concern that is not historical because there was, I would say that it was Christianity’s confidence in itself in places that led to people converting. It wasn’t this, you just say, you can

Mark Harrington (30:16):

Describe to the opposite happening. I hear that from folks saying, when things get worse, people turn to Christ. And I’m like, well, no. I go to college campuses and things are so bad right now. They’re not open to the gospel when we can’t even define what a woman is. They’re not going to be open to what Jesus said about marriage. They’re not going to be open necessarily to what God said about male and female. It seems like they’ve closed their minds, and as things get darker, it’s harder to reach people, not easier. So I don’t know. That’s one of the critiques I hear.

Stephen Wolfe (30:52):

Well, I’d just say, yeah, again, cultural Christianity kind of makes it so that the central issue is you exercising true faith in Christ, whereas now you go into college campus, you got to start from the very basic, which is that men cannot get pregnant. You can go to accept Christ, and then they say, well, but then you’re going to have to then discriminate of transgender people. And so you have to deal with a lot. Whereas in cultural Christianity, it’s you saying, Hey, you affirm all these things already, but now you need to actually have true faith. So yeah, I just think it’s, people want to say, well, the gates of hell will not prevail against the kingdom of God. They want to say that, but historically, it is the case that severe persecution has eliminated over time the church in different places. Of course, the church on Earth is perpetual, always exist, and until Christ comes again, but there have been severe persecution, has essentially wiped out the faith in certain areas before.


I mean, one would be the example of 17th century Japan is the classic example of where there was a thriving Christian communities in different places in Japan, and then they just put their hammer down and essentially was eliminated within a couple decades. But anyway, the point being, I think it is a very modern notion that if we don’t have this public lack confidence, that makes the gospel more attractive. Whereas I think actually having public confidence in our convictions to see the world in line with the moral law and to see the fruits of that, that I think actually is more compelling in an earthly sense, not a spiritual sense, but an earthly sense. It’s more compelling for people to become Christian than actually seeking our own kind of persecution. And

Mark Harrington (32:54):

I guess today is Stephen Wolfe and he is the author of this book, the Case for Christian Nationalism, and I recommend it to everybody listening or watching the program today. You can pick it up on or on the Canon plus website. And if you’re listening to this, and this is kind of peaking some interest, I just exhort you to read the book and in Acts chapter 17 verse 11, we are exhorted to be good berean in that we should examine the scriptures to see what is true. So just don’t listen to one side of this debate, friends, I mean, listen to both sides, make up your own mind. That’s what I’m doing and I exhort you to do. That’s what this program’s all about, presenting the information, not being too biased on one side or the other, or falling for stereotypes or using straw man arguments to try to defeat your opposition.


That’s not what we’re about here. So I exhort you to get this book and read it, Steve, and I know we’re running late here, but I have one more question for you. I hear this as an argument. People will say, oh, Christian nationalism has been tried and it’s failed, and they’ll point to Constantine or Charlemagne or those types of examples. How do you respond to that? I don’t know about you, but if you want to consider America was once a Christian nation, I don’t think we failed to badly. We existed for over 200 years, and there’s been a lot of good that’s come out of this country, but how do you respond to that that’s been tried and failed and it won’t work again if we try it again?

Stephen Wolfe (34:44):

Yeah. Well, I think that we have to keep in, I mean, we have to first of all think of, well, what’s the alternative? I think you mentioned this earlier, is what we’re seeing is this. We’re seeing a type of nationalism at work right now. The elites pushing a certain


Bizarre rights, RITS, bizarre morality pushing just utter absurdity upon us. And this comes after the United States. The Americans essentially stopped thinking of this country as a Christian nation. I mean, the fact of the matter is we thought of ourselves as a Christian people up into the 1950s and sixties and beyond, and it wasn’t until I’d say the seventies, eighties, and now we’re seeing the fruit of it. We’ve actually completely abandoned that notion or conception of ourselves. And so really the absurdity that we’re seeing is essentially the downfall of the fall of Christian America. And so we’re seeing the alternative occur right now. It is true that in the past there are examples and broadly speaking things were not always pretty. They were not perfect. But I think that’s just simply that reflects the fallen world that we’re in. So I think we have to be realistic about what we can achieve, what we will achieve.


Nevertheless, I think in terms of alternatives, it’s much better to have a Christian, people with Christian laws, with Christian self-conception, Christian social customs, and I think we would all prefer that. It’s interesting, like I mentioned earlier, that the cultural Christianity chapter that I was actually praised by even a lot of my critics, but they don’t seem to realize that that takes this kind of self-confidence. It takes a sense that we are, that’s what we are and that’s what we’re going to be, and we need to recover that. But I do think it’s a legitimate objection. Oh, we’ve tried it and it’s failed it every time. But I think again, we have to consider first that nothing’s going to be perfect and we ought to strive for the perfection, but we know it’s going to be imperfect. And if things are going to be messy, that’s politics. But again, what is the alternative? The alternative is the utter absurdity that we’re seeing right now. It’s the dissent into this kind of mad neo paganism on the left that’s being imposed upon us from above.

Mark Harrington (37:19):

Yeah, pagan nationalism.

Stephen Wolfe (37:22):

Yeah, it’s essentially a sort of pagan weird, I mean even the pagans of old, but find some of the stuff utterly absurd and bizarre, but that’s what we’re descending. I mean, it’s almost like a sort of post-Christian paganism where it has some signs of Christian morality abused with added absurdity. And so anyway, again, I think it’s a matter of what would you prefer? Would you prefer to live in the ideal of a type of Mayberry society where it’s high trust, it’s Christian, not perfect, or would you prefer to have a neighbor whose kids are purple haired and confused about their gender and now hate you because, so I think, yeah, the question

Mark Harrington (38:09):

Seems pretty obvious to me, but yeah, I hate to keep you, but I actually do have one more question. No, it’s fine. Go ahead. I don’t want to go down the rabbit hole of eschatology per se, but I think it does animate our worldview, and I happen to not follow the futurist viewpoint that we’re living in the end times and that things are only going to get worse. I don’t believe that. I don’t think the Bible teaches it. I think that does have a lot to do with your viewpoint on this topic. Could you speak to that just a bit? I am not out to alienate. People have different eschatological viewpoints because I think you can be a Christian nationalist and you don’t have to be X, y, or Z when it comes to eschatology per se. But in some ways you do line up.


I happen to believe that things will get better towards the time of the return of Christ. That doesn’t mean it’s always going to get better or it’s going to get better from here forward. I think history ebbs and flows as far as better, whatever that means, more Christian, less Christian. I happen to hold to that view, but that doesn’t mean things are only going to get better. I just think towards the end when Jesus returns, I think we’re going to see the fulfillment of the great commission. That’s what I believe. There are those who believe something very different, but they tend to fall into these camps when it comes to this topic. Again, this is a big question and I don’t know if you want to go there, but I’d be interested in see hearing your viewpoint on that.

Stephen Wolfe (39:49):

Yeah, I get this question a lot. I decided to actually approach it from a different angle away from the question of eschatology. So you’ll notice in the book, I think I mentioned near the end that I actually kind of avoid the whole topic entirely. And it’s because it’s of a work. I say it’s instead of a work of Christian political theology, it’s Christian political theory. So it has more of a philosophical foundation to it or methodology to it. And so I just think that we as Christian human beings can order our society and politics according to God’s moral law. And so I don’t focus on the scatological part of it, but I would be more actually all millennial optimistic. All millennial people are surprised by that. They assume I’m a post-millennial, and actually I’d say with among people who are in this kind of my camp, it’s kind of a split.


And yeah, there’s all mill and post mill people in the, I think there’s some premil people too, which is weird. But I mean, it’s interesting I guess. But yeah, I just think my view is regardless of your eschatological view, if we’re actually going to bring about a Christian nation, Christian nationalism, it’s going to require us to actually bring it into existence. I mean, there is of course the preaching of the preaching of the word from the pulpit that converts hearts, but at the same time as I presented, it’s a matter of law and custom and the people kind of conceive as Christian. That requires us to have the confidence to say, this is who we are, requires us to say we’re going enact law. To that end, it requires us saying, these are going to be, this is sort of way of life that we have, and that’s us having the will to say to make that happen.


And so whether you’re all mill or post mill or prem mill or whatever, you want to see a Christian nationalism, a Christian nation, we have to, I mean, by the grace of God, it’s still the human. It’s still us saying we’re going to make it happen. I think sometimes there’s a tendency among maybe post mill people and others too, to think that it’s all just going to happen spontaneously from just simply the work of the spirit apart from the human will and human action. And I think there’s a kind of cooperation involved here where there is the grace of God that changes our hearts, that sanctifies us, and that leads us to will what is good. And I think that’s so, I don’t dunno if I’m answering your question directly enough. No,

Mark Harrington (42:33):

You are. That’s

Stephen Wolfe (42:34):

What I think that the big hangup is not us kind of getting our eschatology all lined up properly. I think our problem is just the lack of saying we’re going to make it happen. When you

Mark Harrington (42:48):

Say make it happen, you don’t mean imposing it. You mean in a representative government, we have to win elections. We have to promote the right people. We do still have to win hearts and minds, right? I mean, that’s part of it all. That’s what we do here. Created equal, of course, right?

Stephen Wolfe (43:06):

Yeah. Well, what I mean to say is that we still have several states in this country in which most the majority are Christian or at least identify Christian to sociological sense. And it’s a matter of, I think, persuading those people to say, Hey, it’s not just kind of voting these single issue kind of votes, but also we should think of our state as a Christian state. We should think this is how we want to understand Texas, how we want to understand Louisiana or North Carolina or wherever as this state, despite what’s happening in Washington and the coasts, this state’s going to be a Christian state according to the heritage of faith of America. So it’s a matter of convincing those people to have the confidence to do that. I think that that’s one of the problems is one can’t organize and conceive of ourselves in that way. And so yeah, not imposing, it’s not as if it’s like this Bolshevik revolution where it’s like a minority that suddenly imposes communism upon everyone or imposes Christian nationals upon everyone. It is still an organic kind of grassroots effort in which


People will recognize the need for this and the good of it as well, that it is a proper response to moral insanity. That’s been kind of in a way, I mean I know I’m kind of ranty a little bit, but that’s okay. A way are the America is in a sort of occupied, we’re occupied by a foreign empirical power that controls, I mean, it’s hard to think of it this way because you look at Washington and they’re Americans, they’re kind of one of us. They seem to come from us and all that, but it is in a way, and now it gets to an occupation where they come here and they say, we’re going to change everything about your way of life the way you think your religion. We’re going to kind of subvert everything that what made you who you are. And so there’s kind of that center, which is New York and Washington, and they impose that upon us as if they’re occupiers. And I think that’s a good analogy to hopefully wake people up and thinking, no, wait. We have to as Christians oppose that and use the federalist doctrine, the constitutional doctrine of federalism to use state power in opposition to some of the kind of insanity and saying things coming from the American regime.

Mark Harrington (45:42):

And I often refer to us being in a land war, not a guns, bullets, tanks type of war, but where we have divided states, free states, slave states, kind of a setup now. And we have to look at how we would actually make advances, how we might need to strategically retreat in order to consolidate our resources so we can advance once again. So I think that’s you, and I think very similarly on that. My guest has been Stephen Wolfe. He’s the author of this book right here, the Case for Christian Nationalism and Friends, if you have any curiosity about this topic, it’s been talked about in a lot of Christian circles online and in your churches, more than likely you need to pick up the book, be a good berean, and search the scriptures to find out what is true. Don’t just believe what you hear on social media or in your chats or whatever you talk about with other folks. Get it from the horse’s mouth, so to speak. And Steven’s really written, I think, an excellent book here. It’s going to challenge you. It challenged me for sure. And you’re talking about a guy who’s a cultural warrior, has been in this battle for 20 years or more. So Steven, thanks for being on the program. Friends, you can pick up the book at Amazon or Canon Press. Steven again, thanks for being on the show.

Stephen Wolfe (47:15):

Yeah, thank you. I enjoyed it.

Mark Harrington (47:18):

Well, friends, I hope you enjoyed the interview with Stephen Wolf, author of the Case for Christian Nationalism. Be a good Berean. Search the scriptures to find out what is true when you hear this word or phrase being used or bantered about. Now, if you’ve listened to Steven, you’ve got it from the source, one of the main proponents of this concept of Christian nationalism. And also look at the other side, those who are opposing it and make up your own mind. I find it extremely stimulating. I love politics to begin with and political theory. So I think Steven’s a bright mind, but maybe we don’t agree with everything that he proposes, but there’s a lot of good there, and I think we need to be those who are trying to figure out what to do as we go forward. Without vision, the people pair us, right? So anyway, go and pick up his book at Amazon or Cannon Press. We’ll see you next time. God bless you. God bless America, and remember America to bless God.

Outro (48:22):

You’ve been listening to Mark Harrington, your radio activist. For more information on how to make a difference for the cause of life, liberty and justice, go to created To follow mark, go to Mark Harrington Be sure to tune in next time for your marching orders in the culture war.