Doug Wilson, Christian Nationalism, and the Theonomic Debate

This article is adapted from MARSCAST Episode 255

In contemporary discussions surrounding Christian nationalism, few figures have been as polarizing as Douglas Wilson. His approach, particularly in relation to the Antioch Declaration and his theological commitments, has sparked considerable debate among scholars, theologians, and political theorists. This article seeks to examine Wilson's distinctive stance on Christian nationalism, its theonomic underpinnings, and the broader implications for the Reformed and Evangelical traditions.

Wilson’s Approach to Christian Nationalism

Wilson’s perspective on Christian nationalism emerges from a theonomic and Christian Reconstructionist framework, distinguishing it from other proponents such as Stephen Wolfe. Unlike Wolfe, who operates within a natural law, two-kingdoms framework, Wilson asserts a more overtly theocratic vision. In his book Mere Christendom, Wilson argues that theocracy is an inevitability, positing that every society operates under some form of sacred writ. Given this assumption, he contends that Scripture should function as the governing standard for civil society.

His vision extends beyond the confines of the church, advocating for a civil magistrate that enforces both tables of the law. This raises concerns about coercion, especially in a pluralistic society where significant segments remain antagonistic to the authority of Scripture. Wilson’s vision, therefore, does not merely call individuals to personal faith and obedience but seeks societal transformation through legislative and cultural means.

Such an approach draws parallels to historical theocratic models, yet Wilson selectively distances himself from certain elements of historical Christendom. Unlike Puritan commonwealths, which implemented sumptuary laws, speech restrictions, and economic regulations, Wilson adopts what he terms “theocratic libertarianism.” However, he does not provide a compelling theological argument for rejecting the more restrictive elements of historical theocracies while affirming their overarching structure. This raises the question: is Wilson’s model a biblically mandated framework or a selective application of historical precedent suited to modern sensibilities?

The Antioch Declaration and the Far-Right Critique

The Antioch Declaration emerged amidst growing concerns regarding the association of Christian nationalism with extremist elements, including racialist ideologies and anti-Semitic sentiments. Wilson, alongside figures such as James White, has sought to delineate his vision from these elements, publicly repudiating any association with Holocaust denial, racial supremacism, or conspiracy theories concerning Jewish influence in global affairs.

This has placed him at odds with younger figures in the Christian nationalist movement, including Stephen Wolfe and Joel Webbon. The divide is not merely generational but ideological—Wilson and White represent an older cohort intent on preserving a theological and moral framework distinct from racialist nationalism. Conversely, Wolfe has been reticent to engage in public denunciations of extremists within the movement, operating under a “no enemies on the right” paradigm. This divergence underscores an unresolved tension within Christian nationalism: to what extent should adherents engage in ideological gatekeeping, particularly when such associations might threaten the movement’s broader objectives?

Further, the Antioch Declaration’s explicit condemnation of anti-Semitism marks a significant shift in the discourse of Christian nationalism. The willingness of Wilson and his allies to engage in polemics against far-right elements suggests an effort to reframe Christian nationalism in a way that aligns more closely with historical Protestant confessionalism rather than racialist nationalism. This raises important questions regarding the future trajectory of the movement and the extent to which it can maintain theological and ethical integrity.

The Theonomic Impulse and its Challenges

A core assumption in Wilson’s framework is the necessity of Christian political order, yet this assertion lacks clear biblical warrant. While Scripture undoubtedly calls for all individuals to submit to Christ, it does not prescribe a singular civil order. John Calvin, in Institutes of the Christian Religion (4.20.8), rejected the idea that any specific form of government is mandated by Scripture. He further dismissed the notion that Israel’s civil polity ought to be replicated in contemporary societies (4.20.14). This presents a challenge for Wilson’s theonomic vision: if the Bible does not mandate a specific political order, then any attempt to construct a theocracy must be recognized as an extrabiblical imposition rather than a scriptural imperative.

Moreover, the New Testament relativizes ethnic and national distinctions in light of Christ’s kingdom. Paul’s epistles, particularly Galatians 3:28 and Ephesians 2, emphasize the tearing down of ethnic barriers in Christ, forming one new humanity. The Book of Acts demonstrates the gospel’s expansion beyond Israel, highlighting the church’s transnational nature. This raises critical questions for any nationalist movement that prioritizes ethnic identity as a foundational principle.

Wilson’s theonomic perspective also necessitates an examination of the broader implications of enforcing biblical law in civil society. The application of Old Testament civil codes remains a contentious issue within Reformed theology. While Wilson argues for a distinctively Christian legal framework, he does not adequately address the hermeneutical challenges posed by the discontinuity between the Mosaic covenant and the New Testament’s emphasis on the law of Christ.

Additionally, Wilson’s political prescriptions, which include the abolition of federal agencies and a restructuring of national governance according to biblical principles, raise pragmatic concerns. The feasibility of such sweeping reforms in a secularized society presents significant obstacles, both legally and culturally. Wilson’s critics argue that his approach risks conflating the church’s mission with political activism, diverting attention from the primary calling of the church to preach the gospel and administer the sacraments.

Historical Precedents and Contemporary Implications

Wilson’s vision is not without historical precedent. The Puritan experiments in New England, the Geneva of John Calvin, and the Scottish Covenanters all provide historical models of theocratic governance. However, each of these examples operated within distinct historical and cultural contexts, raising questions about the applicability of such models in modern society.

Furthermore, historical theocracies often grappled with internal dissent and external pressures that ultimately led to their decline. The challenge of maintaining doctrinal and ecclesiastical unity within a theocratic state proved difficult, as seen in the fragmentation of Puritan New England and the theological disputes in post-Reformation Geneva. These historical lessons suggest that the implementation of a theocratic vision in contemporary America would face similar, if not greater, challenges.

Conclusion

Wilson’s approach to Christian nationalism is marked by a commitment to theocratic governance and a theonomic reading of Scripture. While his repudiation of racialist elements within the movement is commendable, his broader project remains theologically and historically contentious. The lack of explicit biblical warrant for a theocratic libertarianism, combined with the New Testament’s de-emphasis on nationalistic categories, calls into question the viability of Wilson’s vision within a biblically faithful framework.

As debates surrounding Christian nationalism continue, scholars and theologians must critically assess the theological and historical assumptions underpinning these movements. A return to a robust biblical theology, rather than an ideological commitment to particular political structures, must guide the church’s engagement with society. Future discussions should consider whether Christian nationalism, as envisioned by Wilson, aligns with the broader redemptive trajectory of Scripture or whether it represents a departure from the New Testament’s vision of the church’s role in the world.