This article is adapted from MARSCAST episode 254
In an episode of MARSCAST, Dr. Alan Strange, interim president and Professor of Church History at Mid-America Reformed Seminary, offered a penetrating analysis of Stephen Wolfe’s approach to Christian nationalism, as outlined in his book The Case for Christian Nationalism. This discussion provides an invaluable opportunity to explore the intricate relationship between historical Reformed theology and modern political thought.
Through engagement of Wolfe’s arguments and situating them within the broader historical development of church-state relations, we can better understand the opportunities and challenges that arise when seeking to articulate a Christian political vision in today’s complex cultural landscape.
Wolfe’s thesis rests heavily on the theological and political writings of prominent 16th and 17th-century Reformed thinkers, including John Calvin, Francis Turretin, Samuel Rutherford, and others. He claims to be reviving classical Protestant political theory, arguing that contemporary Christian political thought should look to these foundational figures for guidance.
Wolfe advocates a framework wherein the civil magistrate has a distinct responsibility for the care and promotion of true religion. This idea is rooted in a historical context where early Reformed theologians operated within Christendom—a socio-political order where church and state were closely intertwined.
However, as Dr. Strange notes, Wolfe’s method of lifting these historical sources into contemporary discourse without considering the significant theological and cultural developments since the Reformation creates significant issues. By decontextualizing and recontextualizing these sources, Wolfe risks presenting an anachronistic vision that overlooks how Reformed theology has matured in response to shifting historical circumstances.
The Reformation era was a time of immense experimentation and reflection on the church-state relationship. Reformers like Calvin and Turretin lived in societies where the magistrate often played a direct role in suppressing heresy and promoting orthodoxy. Yet, even in their time, there were debates about the limits of civil authority in religious matters.
As Dr. Strange highlighted, American Presbyterianism, shaped by the realities of a pluralistic and democratic society, intentionally modified its theological approach to the civil magistrate. The 1789 revision of the Westminster Confession of Faith removed language about the magistrate’s duty to suppress blasphemy and heresy, instead emphasizing the state’s role in preserving public peace and protecting the church’s freedom to govern itself according to Scripture.
This shift was not a departure from biblical principles but a prudent application of those principles in light of new historical realities. It reflected a recognition that the coercive power of the state is ill-suited to cultivate genuine faith, which must be freely embraced rather than politically enforced.
One of the most compelling examples of this theological development comes from Charles Hodge, the 19th-century Princeton theologian who wrote extensively on the relationship between church and state. In an 1863 article, Hodge argued that the state best serves religion not by enforcing orthodoxy but by ensuring the freedom of religious communities to pursue their mission without interference.
Hodge wrote that the New Testament teaches positively that religious duties do not belong to the magistrate but to the church. He warned that whenever the state assumes the role of spiritual overseer, it invariably corrupts true religion and infringes on individual conscience.
This theological shift within American Presbyterianism illustrates an important point: the Reformed tradition is not static. It is a living theological heritage that seeks to faithfully apply Scripture to the realities of each age. To ignore this development, as Wolfe seems to do, is to miss a significant part of the Reformed witness.
Dr. Strange cautioned that Wolfe’s approach reflects a kind of historical myopia—one that isolates the Reformers from the ongoing trajectory of theological reflection. It is akin to reading Calvin on Servetus without acknowledging the centuries of subsequent debate about religious liberty, or invoking the Belgic Confession’s original language about the magistrate without considering why it was revised.
The church has always wrestled with the complexities of political life, recognizing that while Scripture provides enduring principles, the application of those principles requires wisdom and historical sensitivity. To simply transplant a 17th-century political theology into 21st-century America overlooks not only the theological maturation of the Reformed tradition but also the vastly different cultural and political realities we face today.
What would a more faithful approach look like? Dr. Strange suggests that proponents of Christian nationalism should not only engage the Reformers but also the theologians who have reflected on their legacy. Figures like Hodge, Kuyper, and Bavinck wrestled deeply with the challenges of modernity and sought to articulate a Christian political vision that was both faithful to Scripture and attentive to historical context.
Engaging with this broader theological tradition would enrich the contemporary debate and prevent the kind of reductionism that often characterizes discussions of Christian nationalism. It would also encourage a more nuanced view of political engagement—one that seeks not merely to reclaim a lost Christendom but to bear faithful witness to Christ’s lordship in the public square in ways that honor the complexities of our time.
Dr. Strange’s critique of Wolfe is not a rejection of the desire for a robust Christian political vision. Rather, it is a call for greater theological depth and historical awareness. The Reformed tradition offers a wealth of resources for thinking about the intersection of faith and politics, but those resources must be handled with care and a willingness to learn from the church’s ongoing theological pilgrimage.
As the debate around Christian nationalism unfolds, it is vital for scholars, pastors, and laypeople alike to engage with the full breadth of Reformed thought. Doing so will not only guard against the dangers of historical revisionism but will also equip the church to navigate the complexities of modern political life with wisdom, humility, and a steadfast commitment to the gospel of Jesus Christ.
By grounding our political theology in the entirety of the Reformed tradition—not just in select voices from the 16th and 17th centuries—we can better discern how to live as faithful citizens of both the city of man and the city of God.
Stay up to date with Mid-America. Enter your email below to keep in touch!
229 Seminary Dr. Dyer, IN 46311