To the Christian Nationalists: Listen to O'Fallon

Calm down a dang second. Hear me out.

Admittedly, this is a little bit like throwing a grenade into a chicken coop. But listen, and listen carefully. I’ve watched both sides of the Christian Nationalism debate for quite a while, and haven’t jumped in to any degree. I’ll remind you, I was calling myself a Christian Nationalist back before it was cool (as you can see below).

That discussion was from 2021. But I first addressed Christian Nationalism in 2019, back at Pulpit & Pen. My definition of the term five years ago was almost identical to how Mark Driscoll is defining it now, who has thrown himself into the Christian Nationalism fight in recent weeks like a bull in a china shop.

I’d share the 6-minute video from Driscoll defining Christian Nationalism, but Twitter and Substack hate each other, so a hyperlink will have to suffice. In fact, Driscoll’s definition of the term is suspiciously similar to the words I used in this post five years ago. Perhaps it’s just a citation error.

But terms evolve. They’re tricky little things.

In 2024, evangelicals have to walk a tight-rope between three definitions of Christian Nationalism. The first definition (1) is the pure etymology of the words, “Christian” and “Nationalism.” Both, of which, are good and godly concepts. That is how I defined it five years ago and Driscoll defines it now. The second definition (2) is what anti-Christians like David French, Russell Moore, and a million frantic, pacing leftists complain about online. Ignore their definitions; they don’t mean anything because they are an intentionally crude caricature and nothing more.

The third definition (3) is what the term actually means today, in any practical way. Ultimately, that’s the only definition that matters and it’s the only one around which any honest discussion among Christians can take place. I’m not unpacking that definition in this post.

Rather, what I intend to offer is a warning to the many young men with whom I am in general agreement on the role of Christianity in government, who have largely ignored the term being commandeered by the aforementioned frantic, pacing liberals on the left and the crazy-eyed trad-caths like Nick Fuentes on the right.

First, I want to commend those guys for not surrendering a perfectly good term like Christian Nationalism because lefties have weaponized it to splatter you with accusations of anti-Semitism like a dye-bomb in a big bag of cash. I’m not sure it’s a wise strategy to die on that hill, but I’ve hardly ever seen a hill I didn’t think was worth dying on. And I have to admire guys like Joe Webbon who, I’m pretty sure, just phrase things in an intentionally volatile way to tick off the twice-aforementioned frantic, pacing leftists. It’s a good sport I know a thing or two about.

But, at the risk of offending the cool kids at the popular table of cutting-edge, vintage-but-not-really, reinvented paleo-conservatism, I really have to tell you that each and every single one of you will regret discounting the sage advice of Sovereign Nations founder, Michael O’Fallon.

I appreciate watching Doug Wilson set fire to Idaho fields with a can of gas and cigar as much, if not more, than the next guy. And I’ll admit that O’Fallon does not have that kind of flair. But one thing O’Fallon has behind him is a history of being right. It’s a also a good sport I know a thing or two about.

Every other day or so, my Substack is dedicated to providing advice directly to the agitators of what I call “The Great Ashakening,” a nuts-and-bolts, you-need-to-hear-this droning on of details the general public doesn’t care about, so it’s stuck behind a pay wall for people who think it’s valuable. So the rest of this post is just for subscribers.