A brief Conversation Between Peter Leithart and Douglas Wilson

Peter J. Leithart writes:

During the recent resurgence of Christian Nationalism, many have speculated about the ultimate shape of a Christian polity.

“Under Christian Nationalism, X will be illegal” has become a recurring meme, where X = everything from abortion, gay marriage, pornography, and usury to pit bulls and modernist architecture. It can be a useful exercise, as it helps Christians think through the role and limits of political authority and the application of biblical norms to public life.

Last week, Doug Wilson added public Catholic processions to the list of prohibited practices. Wilson’s position has precedents. Protestants have always considered certain Catholic practices idolatrous, and England banned Catholic Eucharistic parades into the early 20th century. But Wilson’s comment reveals blind spots in the Christian Nationalist outlook, at least Wilson’s version of it.

First, he apparently envisions a world where Protestants gain political power without Catholic allies. That ain’t gonna happen. It certainly ain’t gonna happen in America. Any Christian-shaped government will depend on contributions from all sorts of Christians. It’s already happened. Where would the anti-abortion cause be without collaboration of Catholics and Evangelicals (and others)? Examine any Christian cause in the past half-century, and you’ll discover the same coalition.

Second, Wilson apparently can imagine a world where Protestants dictate policy, but can’t imagine a world where Catholics and Protestants are reconciled as one body. This characterizes Christian Nationalism in general: Vibrant political imagination alongside a shrunken ecclesial imagination.

Yet one of the most important acts of the first major Christian prince一Constantine一was to call a council to resolve the Arian conflict and reunite the church.

So, here’s the value I want to assign to X: When we have a Christian nation, the Christian ruler will lock 1,000 Christian leaders from every branch of the church in a room and won’t let them go until they figure things out.

Douglas Wilson responds:

My thanks to Peter Leithart for the opportunity to respond to his reaction to my comments on Virgin Mary processions. A more detailed follow up on the topic from me can be found here.

To Peter’s first point, I completely agree. If we are talking about a time frame of 25 to 50 years, I agree that nothing can be done unless Protestants and Catholics are working together, which I am certainly happy to do. But the comments I made were in the context of a hypothetical postmill republic 250 to 500 years from now.

On the second point, I don’t think that it is a failure of imagination to believe that Rome could be divested of her central errors, making reunion possible. After all, if I believe that we are going to be reunited with the Jews, as I do, why would I trip over reunion with Rome?  I do believe there will be such a reunion, but not so long as we stipulate the right for everyone to cling stubbornly to their errors. And yes, there are errors that Protestants need to jettison for this to happen as well. Of course. The soteriology of pop evangelicalism is as bad as Rome’s, only undecorated. The papists have golden spigots and bejeweled buckets and the evangelicals have a green garden hose and a battered tin bucket, but with the same basic man-centered mechanism for dispensing grace.

Yes, Constantine was a unifying force for the church, but this was done by excluding and condemning an error held by many of the bishops. It was not “unity at all costs.” Truth first. 

While not in a position yet to fully endorse Peter’s final proposal, I will go so far as to admit that it has a certain appeal.