The Case for Christian Nationalism: Dignity, Hierarchy, and Misogyny
Overview of Chapter One of Stephen Wolfe's polemic in favour of Christian Nationalism
While this post is available to free and paid subscribers, the remainder of the series will be available initially to paid subscribers only. If you want to read the series as it is published, be sure to subscribe today!
Reading through this book is going to be a tough slog, for many reasons. Firstly, the author doesn’t really argue for his premises, he just assumes them to be the case, based partly on Reformed theologians, primarily from the 16th to 18th centuries. Interestingly, for someone who is so committed to the Reformed tradition of theology, the eminent Catholic philosopher Thomas Aquinas makes some significant appearances. Other premises just seem to appear out of nowhere, or are justified based on ‘natural reason,’ which itself is assumed to be trait available to human animals and no other kind of being. Secondly, the author is blatantly and proudly anti-egalitarian, suggesting that there is a ‘natural’ hierarchy that places, among other things, men above women, in both theory and practice. I should note that the following includes explicit descriptions of misogynistic views. I highlight these not to cause further harm to anyone, but to shine a light in the dark places, so that folks are aware of the challenges our currently world faces. If you need to look away, please do.
Turning to the text then, I’m going to highlight several of Wolfe’s ‘arguments,’ and point out a few things for observation. My point here is not necessarily to make any kind of counter-arguments to Wolfe’s thinking, partly because his book is, despite his own protestations, largely a work of political theology, and not of political theory. That is, it’s abundantly clear from the first chapter that his political arguments rely on theological premises about the state of humanity. Indeed, the entire first chapter is given over to discussing the state of humanity in prelapsarian times, that is, before the fall of humanity via Eve’s consumption and giving of the forbidden fruit to Adam in the Garden of Eden, with the aim of showing how what was the ‘natural order’ before the Fall is, therefore, the ‘natural order’ after the Fall. He writes,
The Christian narrative of man's creation, fall, redemption, and glorification complicates this question. When we say that by nature man is social, are we assuming a state of integrity, a state of sin, a state of pre-glory redemption, or a state of glorification? And how does each state affect our nature, our manner of living, and how we arrange our communities? These four different states raise important questions concerning the continuity and discontinuity of social life as one passes from one to the next. How does fallen social life differ from unfallen social life, and what is the role of grace, the Gospel, and redemption? Surprisingly, no Christian writer (of which I'm aware) has sought to provide a systematic treatment of human sociality that shows continuity and discontinuity between these states. The result has been significant confusion and incoherence in Christian political theologies. One purpose of this chapter is to provide clarity along these lines. (p. 41, emphasis mine)
Dealing specifically with that state of integrity, Wolfe looks to build the case for the inherent dignity of Man. I use the word ‘Man’ here, rather than ‘humanity,’ because it is clear right off the hop that Wolfe considers humanity to be represented by Masculine Men, as opposed to women or effeminate men. Pulling from several Reformed theologians, Wolfe suggests that the Divine Image, found in all Men, exists for the purpose of dominion, rectitude, integrity, and order (p. 53). This is important, he says, because it allows for the dominion mandate to be determined by human excellence. That is, dominion (and through it, dignity) is enabled through clear hierarchy. He writes,
The dominion mandate cannot be a bare divine command that is disconnected from human nature and the sort of gifts God gave us. Taking dominion is not an adventitious duty or a divine positive command. It proceeds from the very nature of man, and so it cannot be rescinded, even by God, without violating the fundamental nature of man. The right to rule creation as vice-regents is derived naturally and necessarily from divinely-granted majesty. And since grace assumes nature (as we see in the next chapter), it does not rescind or abrogate the dominion mandate, and taking dominion well is one result of sanctification. Human dignity is grounded in the image of God. But having dignity is not uniquely human, for (contrary to the modern notion) dignity refers to something's station within a hierarchy. Indeed, without hierarchy, dignity is meaningless. … The image of God, and therefore human dignity, is not some fiat stamp of value, but refers to the possession of distinctive faculties the completion of which is found in noble action." To be a complete human - to fully express human dignity - one must exercise those gifts for their penultimate and ultimate ends; it is a matter of faculty and action. In short, human dignity refers to divinely inscribed properties that elevate man above all other earthly creatures and have inherent ends that require noble action. (p. 53-54, emphasis added)
Now, that we understand that human dignity is found only within God-ordained hierachy, let’s take stock of what Wolfe actually means. As I mentioned above, there is a very clear divide in Wolfe’s work between the dignity of the Man and the dignity of the Woman, let alone children. Here he is talking about what he sees as the ‘natural family unit’
Men and women were created for monogamous and perpetual heterosexual union. We call this the natural family, which forms the "domestic society" (from the Latin for house - domus). This society consists of man and wife with children or the anticipation of children, and it is maximally communal; that is, its relations are non-transactional and characterized by sharing, common possession, and sacrifice. Each person's chief duty, as it concerns earthly relations, is the communal good of the household. Genesis 2:18 tells us that the wife is the "help meet" for the husband, which (whatever else that relation entails) logically implies that the monogamous man-woman union is the basic unit of human society; the basic unit is not individuals but teams of husband and wife. (p 57)
For Wolfe, the basic unit of society is not an individual, nor is it a community, per se, but instead it is teams of heterosexual, permenant partnerships between an individual man and an individual woman, who either have children or intend to have children. Wolfe, however, is not being honest about how he truly sees the most basic unit of society, since the cornerstone of said teams is always the Man/Husband. That is, under Wolfe’s conception of human dignity - that is, natural hierarchy - it is not possible for a heterosexual, perpetual marriage between an individual man and an individual woman to be led by or initiated by a woman. He continues,
[Woman] assists him in his divinely ordained work, as one "who does not stand above him to dominate him, nor beneath him as one degraded to the status of a tool for pleasure, but one who stands alongside him, stationed at his side and therefore formed from his side.” The man does not exist to empower the female, as if his role is merely to bring resources home. Rather, the man governs the household, orienting it to the divine mission he received from God, which he is responsible to see fulfilled. The wife is a necessary support for the man as he meets his obligations to the civil community and the broader mission of humanity. Hence, the divine task given to Adam and his race is reducible not to the efforts of individuals but of domestic teams of husband and wife. The household is the basic unit composing civil society; it is a society of households. We speak more properly, therefore, of households filling the earth rather than individuals filling the earth. (p. 57-58, emphasis added)
Even Wolfe’s fig-leaved attempts to not completely subordinate women to men fail - if the wife is merely a necessary support for her Husband - note that the Husband’s role is explicitly to not empower his wife - then she can never be an individual agent of her own, capable to making her own decisions about her life. She is, as Wolfe writes on page 68,
“subject to her husband, [just as] children [are] to their parents, and citizens [are] to their civil rulers. Instead of speaking of superior or inferior gifts (or skills, talents, etc.), it is more precise to say that the possession of certain gifts makes one suitable for a position of superiority and others suitable for obedience.” (emphasis added)
On Wolfe’s view, then, a woman, who only has value as an agent in light of her Husband’s superiority and authority over her, is subject to her Husband, or, to use Wolfe’s words, “suitable for obedience.”
It should not surprise us that Wolfe thinks of this hierarchy, with men having the gifts suitable for superiority and women having the gifts suitable for obedience, as morally good. Often, progressives fall into the trap of thinking that their interlocutors are merely acting as ‘devil’s advocates,’ that right wing commentators either don’t actually believe that the things they are saying, or that they don’t necessarily believe that their discrimination is a moral good; it’s not merely a matter of ignorance. Indeed, Wolfe puts this false hope to rest for us in this chapter as well:
The egalitarian spirit of our age leads us to imagine that the state of integrity would be one of perfect equality. But this is fairly novel in the Christian tradition. Indeed, inegalitarian principles are so common and foundational in the Christian political tradition that one might call inegalitarianism a catholic political doctrine. Inequality in bodily stature, beauty, knowledge, virtue, domestic authority, and civil authority were regularly affirmed as good and not due to the fall. (p. 66) …
Hierarchy is, therefore, not some postlapsarian necessity. But neither is it morally neutral. It is good in itself, even of higher worth that egalitarian arrangements. (p. 67, emphasis added)
While Wolfe spends a bit more time establishing how nations came to be before the Fall, and how their aims carry over from the pre-Fall state, I will leave it here for the simple reason that we can already see how Wolfe thinks about the nature of humanity:
Even before he concerns himself with how nations form, Wolfe establishes a clear conception of a misogynistic, God-ordained patriarchal hierarchy that places Men - Masculine and Strong - at the top, superior in nature to Women and effeminate men. Women are, by their God-given nature, suitable only for obedience to Men, having the purpose of delivering his babies and meekly acting as his servant in whatever the Man’s God-given earthly mission may be.
In my view, the take-away from Chapter One of Wolfe’s polemic in favour of Christian Nationalism, is that Christian Nationalism, as conceived by Christian Nationalists, requires a misogynistic patriarchal perspective on the purpose and nature of human existence. While this may not be surprising, it is certainly helpful for its current most popular proponent to lay it out so clearly for us.
All FREE subscribers have access to Dinner Table Digests, and to any past content that has been made available to everyone.
A paid subscription nets you Special Edition Digests (like this recent edition on Abortion Rights), my Peter, What Books Are You Reading series, original essays, and acerbic social commentary. Become a supporter of my work today!
I am grateful for your support, and your eyeballs; I look forward to producing interesting and engaging content in the future. I would be especially honoured if you would consider donating $5 per month so that I can continue to create more excellent work in the future. And, of course, if you have any ideas about what you would like to see among the special content, I am all ears!