Chris Has A [Christian Nationalist] Dream. How Does It Turn Out?

As I walked through the wilderness of California, I came to a certain place that seemed like a jail, and I laid down in that place to sleep; and as I slept I dreamed a dream…

I was driving through Bakersfield on CA 99, and I came to an overpass that inspired me to grab the country station dial. There it was: “Merle Haggard Way,” and I was ready to hear, “Are the Good Times Really Over” or “The Fightin’ Side of Me.” Don’t people see “we’re rolling downhill like snowball headed for hell?” Yes, these people, “they love our milk and honey but they preach about some other way of livin’.”

I’m tired of an effeminate culture; men are weak and Christians today are compromised on almost every single issue, they’ve adopted the social agenda of the political left and the country is going to hell in a handbasket for it. Social justice, liberation theology, sexual revolution, feminism, etc.—there’s a giant crisis of identity, you know, in attempted cultural adaptability.

We’ve been demonized by the culture for too long. And who are these infidels to take down God’s country? It’s not their country, it’s mine, it’s Jesus’, so it’s time to reclaim it for Christ. I confess, my Bible has been in the glovebox for too long, dusty from the Bakersfield corn fields. After all, doesn’t the Bible say “Blessed is that nation whose God is the Lord?” Enough is enough, I’m off to Idaho. It will be a lot easier to make fires there, especially in November, where I won’t be fined for dropping the match. Read more»

Christopher Gordon | A Christian Nationalist Has A Dream | Dec 2, 2022

©R. Scott Clark. All Rights Reserved.


Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


  1. As resident of California, I don’t blame anyone for moving to greener pastures for their businesses or families. There is a natural desire in most men to protect their families. For years I flirted with the idea of the Christian Redoubt or East Tennessee. The Kirk in Moscow approach competed with the monasticism of Rod Dreher. But what of the small congregation that I belong to? Several families have exited the state for good reasons. The last thing we need at the moment is and even smaller membership. What of Christ’s body and embassy in my area?

    If I really care about the Kingdom, should I not care about the unchurched in my area, and the spiritual growth of those already present? So I prayed and studied, wanting to better understand Reformed theology and the twofold kingdom that Calvin referred to. I needed to expand my understanding of church history before Christendom when Christians lived and worshipped in hostile societies. I began to find answers within the resource pages of the Heidelblog, as well as encouragement. Nothing is amiss. The Kingdom is where it has always been.

  2. I lived that dream. Providence woke me just in time. I guess you can say I am one of the “woke”.

  3. Somebody help me understand . . . is it worse to be “Christian Nationalist” or an “evangelical?”

  4. Bob:

    “Thankfully?” As in “I thank you Lord that I am not like those Christian Nationalists and Evangelicals?”

    • Paul: Yes. One should be thankful for that.
      Broad ‘American Evangelicalism’ birthed Christian Nationalism. Birthed and reared. Two heads of the same heretical monster.
      Nevertheless, Christ will lose none of his own. The true Church is in the very best of hands.

  5. Paul: That’s a little harsh isn’t it? Do you believe that either being a Christian Nationalist or an Evangelical are the only two belief choices open to a Christian?

  6. Paul: If someone were Reformed in theology, piety, and practice, wouldn’t you consider that to be a third option that is not necessarily part of your two options? Do you consider one who is Reformed to be automatically part of your two exclusive options?

  7. Yes, and if I were Reformed in theology, piety and practice, I would not make a living denigrating those outside of my clan.

    Are you with me now?

  8. Paul: If you’ve got an accusation to make, it would help if you had the courage of your convictions and would just make your case without innuendo. So to answer your question, no I am definitely not “with” you.

    • Brothers,

      I take it that Paul’s complaining about “Christian Nationalists” and “evangelicals” being criticized and marginalized.

      Paul, it would help if you could be more explicit about what you’re saying so that people can discuss it without having to guess or draw inferences.

  9. Thanks, Dr. Clark . . .

    Christian Nationalism is a straw man. Nobody (outside the mind of the one writing) knows what a Christian Nationalist or a cult member or Trumpism (Mike Horton’s invention) really is. It is a caricature. It is a straw man. Straw man arguments are bad arguments. Further, if the URCNA agreed upon the definition of a Christian Nationalist, would they also endorse this approach?

    “Evangelical,” is another popular whipping boy. I would argue that when RSC uses the word he is referring to the traditional practices among evangelicals (it is a pretty wide net) that are without Biblical support. I can testify with conviction that if I were openly caricatured as an evangelical charismatic, I’d have nothing to do with Reformation Theology today.

    BTW, I hope that nobody on this blog actually prays “Oh God, I thank you that I am not like other men . . . the Christian Nationalist, the evangelical, etc.”

    • Hi Paul,

      I would agree that “Christian Nationalism” is used by some as a bogeyman to shut down debate.

      I cannot agree that Christian Nationalism is a straw man. The new book by Wolfe makes it impossible to say that it’s a straw man. There we see a definition, an agenda, and some very unpleasant ideas (e.g., kinism).

      “Evangelical” is a difficult term to be sure. D. G. Hart makes a good case (Deconstructing Evangelicalism) that the thing, “evangelicalism,” does not really exist.

      Evangelicals, however, certainly exist. There are, however, about as many definitions of “evangelical” as there are evangelicals. The old definition, before WWII, generally referred to the Reformation use of “evangelical” as shorthand for the solas.

      Since, the early 19th century, however, the “evangelical” movement has been substantially changed by the revivals of the 18th and 19th centuries, the Charismatic movement, Pentecostalism, and Pietism to name the chief influences. Today, after WWII, “evangelical” doesn’t really signal “Reformation solas” any longer.

      So, I’ve been fairly critical of the “evangelical” movement, especially the post-WWII “neo-evangelical” movement and the Young, Restless, and Reformed movement. Some years ago I put together a bibliography for my students:

      Select Resources on Evangelicalism


      1. With Presbycast On Revival, Revivalism, And What Does “Evangelical” Mean?
      2. Defining “Evangelical” Is Already Difficult But This Makes It Impossible
      3. Hart On The Intractable Problem Of Defining Evangelical
  10. Hi Bob:

    When I said, “are you with me”, I meant, “Do you understand where I am coming from.” If I’m not clear, please feel free to email me below. I also have a cell phone that works.

    Re: courage of convictions, it is sometime tough to communicate such things with a lot of words due to parsing, etc. Once Dr. Clark posted an on the ground report from his friend in Ukraine and I turned it into a debate on foreign policy.

    You have my info. below.

    rev153 use the at sign + comcast dot com

    Paul A. Grace
    Greenfield, IN

  11. Christian Nationalism/Evangelicalism= the U.S. military not sanctioning Chaplains outside of the traditional “American” faiths. No Dutch/German reformed allowed. It was a thing in the 50’s. No different now. All about the U.S. being the favored “nation” of God. Over realized eschatology.

  12. Dr. Clark:

    Thanks for your response. I was not aware of Wolfe — there are a number of theonomic types out there as well as people that simply think of the U.S. as a Christian nation. It would be helpful for authors to reference Wolfe if they are targeting his views.

    Regarding evangelicals, yes there are many definitions. At one time the generic definition pertained to those who believed in the necessity of the new birth. Today it seems to point toward non-denominational churches with contemporary worship styles and no historical identity. Yet it also encompasses the SBC as well as some Calvinistic, Arminian and even some Friends (Quaker) Churches. In my experience, most but not all of these type of churches still believe in the necessity of salvation, by grace, through faith. Many times, their presence in a non-denominational church resulted from their rejection of a mainline church.

    Although the typical person that attends a non-denominational, evangelical church may not be theologically sophisticated, there are some outstanding evangelical biblical commentators writing today (NICNT, PNTC, BECNT, ZECNT, NIVAC, TNTC — these are all abbreviations for academic, evangelical commentaries). A person would be remiss to avoid them simply because they are labeled “evangelical.” David Garland, Mark Strauss, Eckhard Schnabel, et al. are great scholars with a unique ability to communicate.

    BTW, the evangelical links provided by Dr. Scott Clark above are very good.


  13. I understand the kinds of things that the Christian Nationalists would like to see happen in the U.S. What puzzles me is how exactly do they think these dreams can be achieved?

  14. Dr. Clark:

    “Kinnism” seems to hate everything the Ku Klux Klan hated. Wolfe expressly denied that he embraced Kinnism on his Twitter account. Can you direct me to where, in his book, he embraces Kinnism?

Comments are closed.