William Schrecengost’s Reviews > The Case for Christian Nationalism > Status Update

Up to ch8 continued: the biblical (or pseudo biblical) examples usually given to support rebellion (not used here because he doesn’t do that) are the Rebellion against Rehoboam in Kings/Chronicles (which they all subsequently apostatized) and the Maccabean revolt (who subsequently set themselves up as priests rather than restoring the Zadokite priesthood). Both examples are not favorable to those who rebelled.

Up to ch8: I disagree with the right of rebellion. We simply don’t see a positive affirmation of such in scripture. The law is very strongly against rebellion and those who do rebel against God’s anointed are consequently executed. David is the most righteous lesser magistrate ever in the history of the world that could potentially have lead a “justified” rebellion against a tyrant, but rather submits.

Up to Ch7 continued 2: in Israel, the king was one of the 2 pillars of the temple (Boaz of the Jachin and Boaz) and would stand in his place during covenant renewal ceremonies. (2 Kings 23:3, cf 2 Kings 11:14) The kings were not priests but they carried a guardian role, standing at the gate as the cherubim of the garden.

Up to ch7 continued: I do disagree with his total separation of the church and state. I think the church has some level of authority over the state and is not so separated from civil concerns. The pastors definitely have the responsibility to seek to understand biblical civil law and advise the prince accordingly. Especially if the prince decides to not make any biblical arguments for his actions as Wolfe is doing.

Up to Ch3 continued: it seems to me that the nation is not called to always seek its own good. I like how he presents the nation as a “corporate person” because I think that helps to show how self-centered that argument is. The nation of Israel was the suffering priestly servant to the nations. It wasn’t called to seek it’s own interests, but to limp along and be a blessing to the nations around it.

Up to Ch3: I’m concerned about his “for the good of the nation”. There’s a lot of things that can be argued for in this. The first thing I thought of is the national benefit of having a standard education. It can certainly be argued that it is in the best interest of a national to have standardized education to ensure a common intellectual base for it’s citizens.

Introduction continued: He also chooses not to deal with the other forms of “Christian Nationalism” which is probably part of why there’s so much controversy surrounding this. He should have devoted a chapter to responding to “those who call themselves Christian Nationalists”.

Otherwise this book definitely does not deserve the controversy it has created.

Introduction: his excuse for not making Scriptural arguments is pretty pathetic to be honest. It’s nice that you’re relying on the Reformed tradition, but a part of writing a treatise according to that old way of doing so is to have abundant Scriptural backing. At best, his failure to do so is laziness.