By Davis Carlton

Neil Shenvi has written a multi-part review of Stephen Wolfe’s Defense of Christian Nationalism. I found a link to Shenvi’s review from an article by Kevin DeYoung on The Gospel Coalition denouncing “right-wing wokeism.” There is much in DeYoung’s article that needs to be addressed, but for now I wanted to address Shenvi’s objections to Christian nationalism because many within the evangelical mainstream admire DeYoung. Shenvi offers three objections to Christian nationalism as it is presented by Stephen Wolfe. Wolfe is ambiguous about the meaning of a nation. Wolfe is also ambiguous about the meaning and application of ethnicity. Finally, Wolfe wrongly assumes that national identity would have developed irrespective of the Fall. I don’t intend to speak on Stephen Wolfe’s behalf. He is more than capable of responding to his own critics, but I do think that I can provide a Kinist perspective on these issues.

First is Shenvi’s objection to Wolfe’s perceived lack of specificity in defining what he means by a nation. Shenvi writes, “One major, and perhaps insurmountable, problem with Wolfe’s book is his failure to provide a clear definition of the concept of ‘nation.’” Shenvi adds, “[I]t is absolutely crucial for Wolfe to provide a precise definition of ‘nation.’ Unfortunately, Wolfe doesn’t offer such a definition.”¹ Shenvi acknowledges that Wolfe does describe nations in his work as based in “blood relations, a sense of place, history, memory, familiarity, similarity, and language.”

Shenvi states that Wolfe comes close to defining a nation when he states that a nation “is a particular people with ties of affection that bind them to each other and their place of dwelling.” Nevertheless Shenvi objects that “this definition would encompass everything from a single nuclear family to a global empire, provided its citizens have a strong enough sense of mutual affection and imperial identity.” Shenvi then points out the problem of Wolfe’s ambiguity by suggesting that we could substitute the made up word shmation for nation and shmationalism for nationalism which would naturally lead readers to ask, “what’s a shmation?”

I have a number of things to say in response. First, I don’t think that Shenvi is entirely off base in his objection. Wolfe could have done more to provide a working definition of a nation in a book defending Christian nationalism. Shenvi isn’t unreasonable to ask for a specific definition in such a work. That being said, I do think that Wolfe provides enough material to work with and what he has said about national identity has tended to trigger the right kinds of people. Wolfe also explicitly ties ethnicity to national identity when he says that “I use the terms ethnicity and nation almost synonymously, though I use the former to emphasize the particular features that distinguish one people-group from another [while] nation is used to emphasized the unity of the whole, though no nation (properly speaking) is composed of two or more ethnicities.”

Virtually everyone understands ethnic identity to be tied to common ancestry, even if Shenvi finds Wolfe to be confusing on this matter as well (more on this in a second). Shenvi’s objection that Wolfe’s descriptive definition is too vague in that it could “encompass everything from a single nuclear family to a global empire” also doesn’t resonate. While it’s true that in a strict sense it could apply to a nuclear family, I don’t believe that it could be applied to a “global empire” no matter how strong the sense of “imperial identity” such people might have because empires by definition are comprised of people who do not share “blood relations, a sense of place, history, memory, familiarity, similarity, and language.”

Indeed the reason that empires inevitably collapse is because the various people under a singular political power do not feel a sense of “mutual affection” that is possible at the national level because of differences in their history, religion, language, and extended family relationships. Wolfe’s usage of the word nation relies somewhat on colloquial understandings of words and concepts and perhaps he could have done more to flesh out the concept, but I also don’t think that it is as vague as Shenvi alleges. There is enough material to conclude that the United States as presently constituted is comprised of many nations and that this is a source of constant friction, especially at the level of national politics.

If Shenvi and others are interested in a more concrete definition of nation that can be used in defending Christian nationalism I would suggest the one provided in the 6^th Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary: “A people, or aggregation of men, existing in the form of an organized jural society, usually inhabiting a distinct portion of the earth, speaking the same language, using the same customs, possessing historic continuity, and distinguished from other like groups by their racial origin and characteristics, and generally, but not necessarily, living under the same government and sovereignty.”

I would also point out that the question of defining a nation isn’t simply a problem for Kinists or self-described Christian nationalists. The word nation appears throughout the Bible as the translation of words in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek that are used quite frequently. I believe that the definition that I provided above is consistent with the word as it is used in Scripture. Shenvi and other critics of nationalism might disagree, but then it is incumbent upon them to provide their own definition and defend it. I made this very point recently in my article, “What is a Nation?”

Simply substituting the made up word shmation and implying that the word nation is equally ambiguous doesn’t take into account that the word nation has a distinct historical meaning in the English language, and that this usage is consistent with how national identity was understood by the Biblical authors as well as the writers of classical antiquity. The question can be and ought to be pressed just as much to the opponents of nationalism: When the Bible refers to nations, what is it talking about?

I have one final word on Shenvi’s objection against Wolfe’s purported ambiguity in his usage of the word nation. Often critics of Kinism, ethno-nationalism, or generic Christian nationalism are accused of “racism” by their opponents. This word is almost never defined in a meaningful way. When I’ve asked the more vocal critics of my own position what they mean by “racism,” the response I receive is usually indignation. Some time ago a PCA pastor even suggested that the demand for a definition of “racism” was a “will to power” argument and implied that my request for a definition confirmed that I was indeed a “racist.” Is Shenvi equally critical of the “woke” crowd that levels these sorts of accusations against us?

Next I turn to the concept of ethnicity. Shenvi states “When Wolfe uses the term “ethnicity,” he is not using it in its colloquial sense to refer to categories like French, Hispanic, Chinese, Irish, etc… One of the more common phrases Wolfe uses to characterize ‘ethnicity’ is ‘your own people,’ that is, the people you recognize as ‘your own people.’ One consequence of this definition is that ethnicity can cross racial lines.”

I think that Shenvi has a point here in that Wolfe has spoken somewhat confusingly on the subject of ethnicity in what is published in his book as well as what he posted on social media and in a private conversation that he had with Shenvi which Shenvi shared with Wolfe’s permission. Pastor Bret McAtee agrees and has offered friendly criticism from a more consistent Kinist/ethno-nationalist perspective.

Nevertheless Shenvi still calls Wolfe’s assertions about the function of ethnicity within Christian nationalism to be “deeply flawed, especially in relation to the church.” Shenvi is particularly troubled by Wolfe suggesting, “People of different ethnic groups can exercise respect for difference, conduct some routine business with each other, join in inter-ethnic alliances for mutual good, and exercise common humanity (e.g., the good Samaritan), but they cannot have a life together that goes beyond mutual alliance.”

Shenvi asks, “Imagine that Christians of different “ethnicities” actually came to believe that they could not share a “life together that goes beyond mutual alliance.” What would this idea do to the unity of the church? Would Bible studies have to segregate along lines of ‘ethnicity’? Would mentorship and discipleship relationships dissolve and reform to guarantee an ‘ethnic’ match? Would Christians visiting a new city have to seek fellowship primarily among ‘their own [ethnic] people?’”

Shenvi, relates that in his “men’s Bible study in New Haven included a Romanian math graduate student, a medical student from Ghana, a White hedge fund manager, and a part-Native-American/part-Black carpenter. Under no possible definition of ‘ethnicity’ did we share a common ethnicity. Yet we did life together. We ate together. We wept for each other and prayed for each other. If Wolfe is serious about describing our experience of ethnicity in terms of who we identify as “my people,” then these were “my people.” They were ‘my people’ precisely because they were ‘Christ’s people.’”

Here I think that it is helpful to distinguish between broad generalities and individual exceptions to these general principles. I believe that critics of nationalism often miss the forest of general patterns for the trees of individual exceptions. Exceptions within patterns can be acknowledged while still validating the general principle. When Paul affirms that the residents of Crete are “always liars, evil beasts, and lazy gluttons” (Titus 1:12) his rhetoric doesn’t seem to leave room for exceptions, but most would agree that such exceptions could exist without disproving Paul’s overall point.

A similar example would be the how the Canaanite nations like the Jebusites are condemned for their collective wickedness (Deut. 7:1-5, cf. Lev. 20:23) in spite of exceptions to this general rule like Araunah the Jebusite who sells King David the land upon which the Temple would be built (2 Sam. 24). This kind of thinking has lost favor in the postmodern West and Baptists seem especially averse to making these kinds of generalizations, but the Biblical authors frequently make these kinds of overarching pronouncements. Neil Shenvi is making the same mistakes that many evangelicals make.

The fact that Shenvi was able to “do life together” with men from different ethnic backgrounds doesn’t mean that mass immigration from any of these ethnic groups would allow for social cohesion on the macro level. Individuals in unique circumstances can assimilate into other cultures that are at times even very different from that of their ancestors, but this never happens when people are displaced on a large scale. It’s entirely natural for Christians to acknowledge our spiritual brotherhood with Christians across the globe while opposing the intentional dispossession of white people that globalists aim to achieve with the Great Replacement.

There is also the problem of language like “doing life together” that seems to be intentionally vague. Being a married Christian man means that you cannot “do life together” with other Christian women the way you live with your wife. Likewise I don’t “do life together” with the children of other Christian families in the way that I relate to my own children. The logical conclusion of Shenvi’s criticism of Christian nationalism is that national identity and the continued existence of distinct nations really doesn’t matter. If everyone can simply “do life together” then we become nothing more than interchangeable parts. If distinct nations exist only due to hostility then one would expect national identity to become increasingly less relevant as the Gospel spreads. Shenvi’s comments on race and eschatology bear this out.

Shenvi objects to Wolfe’s contention that there is substantial continuity with the pre-Fall order. Wolfe asserts that nations would still exist even if Adam and Eve had not sinned in the Garden of Eden. Shenvi finds Wolfe’s case speculative and overly dependent upon principles that Shenvi believes to be dubious. I tend to agree with Wolfe’s claim that nations would have still formed in an unfallen world. As mankind spread out we would still have a unique and special relationship with those who are closest to us. We would still retain a distinctive honor for our fathers and mothers in keeping with the Fifth Commandment. That being said, I don’t think that the case for Christian nationalism rests upon the idea that nations would have formed in the same way in an unfallen world.

I will concede that Shenvi has some valid points in his criticism of Wolfe’s case. That being said, the formation of nations should still be understood as an important aspect of God’s providence in the arc of history. The Fall is not an unfortunate mistake that God had to scramble to fix, but was planned from the beginning so that God would glorify Himself in the redemption of His people. Jesus is the lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8). A corollary of this is that God has used fallen circumstances such as the Tower of Babel (Gen. 11) to separate mankind into distinct nations with their own homelands (Deut. 32:8, Ps. 86:9, Acts 17:26-27). Christ’s redemption of mankind doesn’t reset everything that has happened since the Fall. Christ will forever remain a man with a human nature, and redeemed mankind will continue to exist as distinct nations (Rev. 21:24-26, 22:2).

Francis Nigel Lee summarizes the Kinist and Christian ethno-nationalist understanding of eschatology when he said, “Pentecost sanctified the legitimacy of separate nationality rather than saying this is something we should outgrow. . . . In fact, even in the new earth to come, after the Second Coming of Christ, we are told that the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of the heavenly Jerusalem, and the kings of the earth shall bring the glory and the honor—the cultural treasures—of the nations into it. . . . But nowhere in Scripture are any indications to be found that such peoples should ever be amalgamated into one huge nation.”2

I don’t think that Neil Shenvi is a bad guy. I appreciate his efforts to critique “woke” rhetoric emanating from many evangelical pulpits. My hope is that those like Shenvi see Christian nationalism for what it really is, Christian ethno-nationalism, and come to understand this as the only viable alternative to the secular globalist leviathan with which we are currently engaged in a mortal battle to the death.

1Bold text in all quotes are original and indicate emphasis from Neil Shenvi

2Dr. Francis Nigel Lee. “Race, People, and Nationality.” 2/2/2005